This "doctor's" post does reflect some deep levels of phychological immaturity and distored logic. Please tell me he is not a real doctor, with real patients.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, braaahmaan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I just realized that this whole discussion of a > > "false" guru is nonsense. > > > For you I presume. An analysis of its applicability for your life. Or > are you making a universal truth claim? > > > > Of what purpose are all > > these criteria? Are these to be used to select a guru? > > No, not as they are written. > > I differ. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/82762 > I think the list is common sense -- would you choose a teacher that > doesn't walk his or her talk, that is paranoid? Its not a big stretch. > > Others points are more of a think piece: one who dwells on opulence? > Not necesarily a bad thing, but may imply a different road, a > different trip, a different bus than a more modest teacher. As do > things like encouraging or not encouraging debate and free-inquiry. > > But the biggest value of the list, IMO, is that it opens seekers > awareness to the possibility of such qualities being uncovered down > the road. At first sight, most teachers are grand and wonderful. No > sense of anything questionable, odd or corrupt. The question doesn't > enter the mind. > > But I think it IS a good thing to consider, sort of like pre-marriage > counselling, "here is a list of things that MAY pop up over the years. > You should be open-eyed about that, and consider some initial > strategies should such be found. Otherwise, if histroy is any guide, > you may be stuck in denial for years, paralyzed, unable to act, until > the denial begins to mature to rationality, enablng action. > > --------- > > > They are simply an > > attempt by a mind to position itself in relationship > > to a narrative it likes regarding gurus. > > That may be your take. For you. Which seems pretty limited and > immature to me. But if it works for you, carry on. Rage on. > > > They > > HAHAHA. You clearly mean "I". > > > have an > > ideal guru in mind and compare and judge every flesh > > and blood guru to this one. > > > > It's really nonsense and > > no practical function. Just mind fluff (very sticky > > indeed!). > > You have these large battles raging isnide don't you dr pete. A > litteral internal Mahabharatta. > > > The only > > "The only" ??? > > > So you are making universal truth claims? You are claiming that there > is only one legitimate way for EVERYONE to view this list? Oh my!! > This is extreme, even unbalanced. > > > way to see if a guru is of value is > > to involve yourself in their teaching for an honest > > amount of time. If it works for you, great, if it > > doesn't, move on. > > So let see. Per your advice I will/would spend a 1-5 years each with > Adi-Da, Rajneesh, Maharaji, Walter Belim, Sai Baba, Andy Rymer, Jim > Jones, the Arrayan Nation, the Cripes, the current Republican party, > the asteriod black tennis shoe folks, etc. No pre-screening is either > necessary or worthwhile per your view. The ONLY way to evaluate these > groups is to jump in head first. > > This is satire isn't it Dr. Peter? I mean you can't possibly be > serious, are you? > > > Buddha didn't disparage the teachers > > he studied with and found inadequate to his > > enlightenment. > > You know this as a fact? You are a buddhist scholar? Ok. Name 10 > teachers Buddha studied with. If these don't role off the tongue, how > would you possibly know if Buddha disparraged them? > > > > He just moved on. These teachers had a > > value for other people, not for him. > > Thats an excellent point. Using some preliminary screening does not > say the "rejected teacher" have no value for anyone. It just means > that they "probably" do not for the screener. Like SBS. He had > criteria. He rejected many. And moved on. Not disparaging. Why in > heavens name does having a criteria imply or necessitate disparaging? > > Your whole argument is based on a false premise: that using some > criteria for selecting a teacher implies or necessitates dissing > teachers not choosen. Its a huge strawman argument logical fallacy > that you are entrapped in Dr. Pete. Wake up. > > > > MMY has had great > > value for many people. Many people still gain value > > from him. Many have moved on. It is what it is. > > To > > lock yourself into a conceptual model of a "perfect" > > guru is just silliness. > > Again, good advice -- though this has nothing to do with a > pre-screening criteria list of qualities for a guru, It ONLY has to do > with your false strawman fallacy -- which exists only in your mind. > > Like wishing for the "perfect" > > mate or mother or father. A sign of psychological > > immaturity, isn't it? > > I do think there is tremendous psychological > immaturity here. But it has nothing to do with a pre-screening > criteria list. It has to do with your claims for universal truths > aplicable for everyone, and your construction of a huge strawman > logical fallacy. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
