--- 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. 

Perhaps this should become the new 3rd step in the TMO treadmill.

> 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.

Be nice. Its hard to blieve Dr. Pete meant it in such a black and
whaite fashion. 

> > 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!). 

Opps. Perhaps I was mistaken. Is nuance and the gradations of things 
lost on these posters?

> You have these large battles raging isnide don't you dr pete. A
> litteral internal Mahabharatta. 
> > The only 
> "The only" ???

Yes, when people start playing the "The only" card, its time to run
for the doors. There are few such absolutes. Actually only one. N'est
ce pas?
> 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. 

Thats pretty funny. Yes just go with your feelings luke, feel the
force and you will be guided to the right guru. No thinking necessary.

> 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 notice lots of strawmen on this list. 

> 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

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to