--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], 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 >
Just as Mark did, I really enjoyed this exchange. I liked the descriptions about resonance and attraction, forgetting the higher state descriptions in order to live them, experience preceeding intellectual comprehension, and especially Brahman manifesting the relationship between the teacher and the student in order to more fully know and enliven Brahman. Really beautifully written! ------------------------ 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/
