An excellent (most recent) post and a very productive dialogue.  Thanks.

--- In, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In, 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

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