--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think from that perspective, you would feel that everything that > happened could not have happened otherwise, that all > your 'mistakes' > in thinking and feeling were no mistakes at all, but were just all > part of the path to where you are now. How could you then have felt > sorry about anything, when there was nothing to achieve? If this is > the understanding, which comes from inside, how could you possibly > feel bad about 'being taught wrongly' or having had a wrong > understanding previously? That is what I don't get from your > position Barry. How could you complain about the past so much, > about things and experiences which are decades ago?
I just wanted to say that this is a perceptive comment. Thanks. Pondering it, I really don't think that what I'm doing is "complaining" about any teachings that led me personally "astray," as I am trying to pinpoint spiritual teachings that, IMO, lead almost *everyone* astray. In general, I think that those teachings and world views that attempt to convince the seeker that they know how the world works and exactly how the spiritual process unfolds are unproductive in the long run. For example, the phrasing "become enlightened." It's just a simple thing, a way of saying something. But it's Just Not True, as almost anyone who has had strong enlightenment experiences will attest to. How can one "become" that which one has always been? As such, I don't think this par- ticular phrasing and way of presenting enlighten- ment is terribly *productive*. I much prefer the way that things are phrased and expressed in the Advaitan/Papaji tradition, as if one simply realizes what has always been present. When that happens, there is no set of teachings or buzz- phrases about "becoming" running around in one's mind that one has to discard. I feel the same way about systemitized, "this is the way it is" formulations of the different states of consciousness, whether they are presented in terms of there being seven of them or 10,000 of them. Both systems are, as far as I can tell, a way of "squishing" the full magnitude of reality into a much smaller, easier-to-comprehend but essentially untrue description of reality. The development of consciousness is almost certainly more of a continuum, one that possibly has no predictable course and no end. Why not just *start* with that description, rather than teaching people fairytales to convince them that it's all predictable and comprehensible to the intellect? Maybe it's just preference, nothing more. Towards the end of a long, strange trip of a lifetime, I find that I am more grateful to the teachers and traditions that told me stuff along the Way that was fairly accurate than I am to the ones that told me fairytales. The fairytale-tellers may have meant well on some level, but the bottom line is that they were telling fairytales. And the one trend I've noticed, in my life at least, is that the fairytale-tellers were ususally *SELLING* their fairytales, whereas the few who gave me honest answers gave them away for free. Thanks for giving me something to think about... ------------------------ 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/
