An excellent (most recent) post and a very productive dialogue. Thanks. **
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> 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? > > <snip> > > > 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. > > From my POV there is no 'leading astray'.These views exist or rather > attract people, because they appeal to them (their ego). If there > wouldn't be any resonance then they wouldn't be known at all. If there > is a lost of resonance, they become big successes.As you have been > attracted to such teachings, your consciousness at that time was > simply strongly resonating with it, otherwise you would have been > attracted to some other teaching, as all these teachings are available. > > > 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. > > To this I have a nice quote out of a book I just received two days ago > in the mail.It's by an indian saint of the 13th century with the name > Jnanadeva: "And distinction such as, one liberated, one having desire > to get liberated and the one remaining in bondage according to their > spiritual development remains so long as the flavour of the nectar of > experience is not tasted by them." (Amritabubhava, X.25) > > (There is a distinction implied here between the just liberated state > and the state of Paramapada or Amritkala, to the later refers the term > 'nectar of experience'). If you ponder about the meaning, you'll > realize, that this distinction, that you find so unwholesome, is > inevitable in the state of ignorance. > > > 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. > > It's not my mission here to defend Maharishi. I had similar thoughts > when I came across the Papaji teachings. I thought: 'Why wasn't I told > this right away?' But behind this question is another one: Why did I > waste time? Why couldn't I have *achieved* it before? And now you see > how you lead your own argument ad absurdum, in calling this teaching > (MMY's) *unproductive*. It implies, that you still believe, somewhere > deep down, that enligtenment is produced by a set of teachings and > instructions, and that you just have to give somebody the right set of > instructions, and viola, he will achieve. > > Now, interestingly enough, I heard from Maharishi himself, all these > things you are pointing out, that there is no way of *achieving* > Brahman, that progress is just a march in an illusiory desert, as he > phrased it. This was a real relevation to me. When I pointed this > perspective out to my fellow listeners, they just didn't seem to have > heard it! Or didn't attribute anything of value to it. Maharishi also > had said, that all knowledge, that is all systematizing of states of > consciousness had to be forgotten, before one could actually *achieve* > them. He alluded to his own tactics as sort of an imprint in memory, > which had to be forgotten, but which could be drawn upon later on, > when the thing was happening. Then there would be that faint memory > somewhere, which could clarify a particular situation. (suppose in a > transition from CC to UC). > > Now, if this tactics is terribly productive, I don't know, I just know > that this particular body/mind organism called Maharishi was drawn to > it, that is that the supreme Brahman wanted him to do so, and that I > in turn, at that time was drawn to this particular body-mind named > Maharshi, which equally was just corresponding to my level of > consciousness and understanding at that time. So, you see, I see this > in a fairly imporsonal way, but this is of course my perspective now. > > Now just one more point of Maharishis teachings, as far as I remember > them: He clearly stated that there is different knowledge for > different states of consciousness, and that the knowledge of one state > would be a lie at the next level (that it had to be forgotten at that > level). I don't know why other people didn't here all this, maybe they > were just not terribly interested in such teachings at the time. > > > 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. > > Necessarily, as any language would do, when describing experiences. > Any set of instructions would do, any philosophy would do, and even > any poem would do the same. But nevertheless teachings, philosophies > and poems exist and will always do so. > > > > 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? > > > Was it ever said that it is comprehensive to the intellect? AFAIK it > intellectual knowledge was regarded to e a supplement to experience, > but it could be only 'comprehensive' once the experience was there. I > remember vthis was pointed out again and again. This being true for > the individual desciption of experiences and states, it must apply to > the total map as well. > > I just was in India. The map I used in Bombay, I couldn't use in > Chennai, the map I used in Chennai, I had to disgard in Delhi. At one > point the maps or travel guides became a burden, I had to throw them > out of my luggage. I wanted to travel 'light'. > > > Maybe it's just preference, nothing more. > > Yes, preference in your present POV, in your present consciousnes > which is deifferent from the one you started with > > > 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. > > I am grateful to the teachers which mattered most to my heart at each > time. I am grateful to the Brahman in them teaching me and guiding me, > and to the Brahman in anyone teaching me and guiding me. Like my > initiator, who told me that we can learn from anybody. If not how to > do it 'right', then how to not do it. In my understanding, there is no > shortcut. Your karma, samskaras (which is also attraction to > teachings) determines the lenghts of your way. > > > The fairytale-tellers may have meant well on some > > level, but the bottom line is that they were > > telling fairytales. > > And you loved the fairytales and you even love them now. Like the one > that a teacher is fallen, when YOU recognized there was something > wrong going on. (Just an allusion to our previous talk about Rama: > Just to preserve your intial memory and concept of them, they where > 'good' in the beginning and 'bad' in the end ;-) > > > 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... > > Thats nice > ------------------------ 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/
