In this post there are some important observations of the value of tradition. My comments in between.
--- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > You seem to be beyond MMY's teachings. Do you feel you have > > > transcended his insights and have (re)cognized a newer or higher > > > reality? Do you feel your insights are deeper and superior to his? > > > > > Question for you: Why should you, or anyone else, use MMY and what > > he says or writes as the 'gold standard' for their spiritual > > development? I'm serious, not just being rhetorical... > > Well, I think "tradition" is valuable in clarifying insights and > interpretation about ones map, path(sadhana) and experiences. Over the > years, I have found many people getting quite "confused" and misled > by simplistic understandings they have concocted themselves or > absorbed from pseudo-teachers out side of any tradition. > > Not to say the holy tradition that MMY says he represents is the > single ultimate gold standard. But it is one "internally consistent" > standard that is based on a substantial amount of tradition, > practices, milestones, research, traditional records of experience, > and realized beings. Other traditons may be more substantial in all > areas, however that doesn't diminsh the value of the guideposts MMY > has cemented into the spiritual geography. > Irmeli: MMY represents his interpretation of the holy tradition. The main problem with MMY is, that he says his interpretation is the only complete and pure one, the others are some ways flawed. This kind of understanding in itself is enough to place him in the fundamentalist category. It is also good to observe, that he is not respected and recognized by many influential vedic scholars. There also seems to be suspicions that at least some of those who recognize him, have been bought by money. > Traditions are like guideposts. They provide useful maps and markers. > Maybe not always "interoperable" between traditions, but consistent > and useful within a tradition. Its sort of like scientific theories > and paradigms. One experiment (one person's experience) does not > create or substantiate scientific knowledge or theory. It takes many > experiments, repeated by independent researchers, under diverse > conditions, and examining many various ranges of observations, to > create a sustained and accepted scientific model of how the world works. > > Spiritual traditions are similar. One persons experience, no matter > how grand, does not map out the entire territory of spiritual growth. > Nor the liklihood of this or that method on this or that aspirant. A > spiritual tradition synthesizes the experiences of many diffferent > types of people, under different conditions, over long periods of > time, and creates a coherent model and standard accepted practices > suitable for "many" -- not just one person. > > Such spiritual tradition are not created in one generation. It is not > ad hoc. It is not made up as one or a group of yogis progress. It > links individual experience with the experinces, sadhanas and > roadmaps/views of many aspirants over many generations and centuries. > > To disgard all traditions, to make it up as one goes along, is in my > observations over the years, usually quite foolish and unproductive. I > have seen a fair amount of people delude themselves over the years. > Irmeli: It is beneficial to study and follow a tradition, but in the following lies dangerous pitfalls also. The most seductive of them for many aspirants is starting to obey and follow a teacher or an organization in an unquestioning fashion having intense need to believe in the superiority of the leader and his path. A fundamentalist teacher usually encourages and favours this kind of behaviour. More beneficial would be if you could take from the teaching only the part you can with good conscience accept and is in line with your observations of reality. Blind following permits and bypass form your common sense and sound judgement. It makes possible to start act out your low minded impulses. Suppressed negative and disowned emotions and thought forms are a burden to our mind. Either you work slowly to uncover and transform those energies or you find justifications to act them out. Unquestioningly following gives that kind of justifications. As a fundamentalist you can make others to feel the fear or coercion, that was too much for you. And simultaneously feel to be in the service of a higher purpose. > In the latter 70s, a prominent Golden Boy SIMS lecturer, Walter Belin > (sp) and his wife, Margurite (long time int'l staffer) wrote a letter > to MMY about a new guru they had met and were following, a South > African businessman. MMY said, "So the choice is clear, you can follow > the ageless vedic tradition, our ancient holy tradition, or you can > follow the Johanesberg (sp) tradition." He laughed as did everyone for > about five minutes. > Irmeli: The situation could also be seen as a choice between a fundamentalist teacher unrecognised by important representatives of the tradition he represents and a more pragmatic teacher, who was better capable of integrating his teaching to modern reality, even if having less knowledge of vedic tradition. > Not to say a person of great purity and insight doesn't come along > occasionally and total knowledge just unfolds within them with no help > from tradition. But this is a "soul" beyond most, beyond the path and > "needs" of a young SB Saraswati, Yogananda, etc. Usually its an > avatar, like Shankara who wrote all or most of his commentaries by 16. > > People outside of a tradition often borrow terms from other > traditions, and use them -- but without the substance, the > meaningfulness from the tradition. The grand terms are used to > describe the more trivial and mundane. It becomes a semantic hodgpodge > and furthers the delusion of proponents and those sucked up in the > nonsense. > > Not to say that many can't and don't have good spiritual experiences > outside of formal traditions. But without a tradition that has stood > some test of time, of long-range view, the "neo-traditions" -- > first-generation ad-hoc, make it up as you go patchworks of > "knowledge", tend to create interpretations of experiences that are > more fantasy and "belief" based than substance based. > > To follow the TMO tradition, and then "go beyond it" outside of any > other tradition, may work for some. But it explicitly means that one > is rejecting the "insights" of MMY's "vedic/holy" tradition, and that > they are holding out their own insights as superior (for themselves, > at a minumum, and for some, they claim universal application of their > insights.) For example, you differ from MMY, in > > i) the role of belief in the effectivness of TM and TM siddhis (as > well as most all sadhanas presumably) > > ii) the attributes of Brahman Consciousness (you appear to hold the > absence of suffering to be the sole criteria.) > > iii) that CC, GC, UC are not milestones to BC; BC is gained without > passing trhough these milestones (even a non-linear set of such milesones) > > iv) that extensive long rounding is not necessary for cc for all but a > few (he says this in smaller groups) Irmeli: Leaving the TMO teachings behind doesn't usually mean that you hold your insights superior to MMY's. Often it means that you start more to trust your own understanding and insights, and you stop justifying your actions by a doctrine or by suggestions from a guru. And then you can benefit even more from the valuable and for you suitable aspects in the tradition, because you are now capable of studying it with more open heart and mind. I also feel it to be quite appropriate to create your own combination of old traditions, by taking from different traditions, what you feel to valuable in them. In the modern world with the multitude of influences we all do that more or less. It is arrogant to claim to be representing a tradition in its pure form. Some ancient text can be said to represent a tradition in its pure, original form. But this native form, even if it has many pearls in it, shouldn't be followed as an absolute truth. It rarely is sensibly applicable in modern reality. Our morals and values have changed and also evolved from those times. But it is important to understand that we are always building on some earlier experience or tradition, and to see what are the possible strengths and weaknesses of those traditions. And it is very important to preserve the old time-tested traditions and keep at least some contact to them, because there can be invaluable wisdom embedded in them, even if we cannot see it at the present moment. I appreciated many aspects in the TMO philosophy in the 70's and 80's, when I participated to many TMO seminars. What I had the biggest difficulty with was MMY's claim that on through his siddhi program one could reach complete enlightenment. I couldn't validate it through my own observation of reality. That doesn't need to mean that I considered myself superior to MMY. It meant that I trusted my own observations and judgement especially in matters of spiritual practises and daily routines. If you want and feel a need to follow a teacher, it is fine. But it might be advisable to choose one, who doesn't claim to possess the absolute truth and who is capable of encouraging you gradually to become independent of him. In this aspect MMY has been quite successful in his brute and maybe unintentional ways. > > Probably you disagree with him in many other areas. > > Not to say you are wrong and he is right. But I assume that your > "insights" are not coming from some other spiritual tradition that has > a meaningful "reasearch" history and reputation for success (many > aspirants, many sadhanas, many generations). > > And while your personal observations may be interesting, on one hand > we have the Santa Claran tradition of several years stemming from one > persons experience and his (shakey, IMO) interpreation of them vs. on > the other hand, MMY's "vedic" / "holy tradition" which maps the > experiences and unfoldment ofconsciousness back through antiquity. > > Which (MMY's traditon) may not itself be perfect, but does represent > MMY's traditonal service/study with a saint universally recognized as > grandly illuminated, MMY's own several years of silence/sadhana, and > his 50 + years of working extensively with a vast array of western and > eastern scientists (Indian pundits and "practicioners") in honing his > teachings, and the testing of his teachings on tens of thousands of > students. Again, his view and teachings may not be perfect, the best, > or a gold standard. But without further info I would bet on it over > the one-man,one-generation Santa Claran tradition. > > Thats my experience and ovservations over 40 years. Others may have > different observations. > ------------------------ 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/
