--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > The interesting thing about this discussion is that > > > according to MMY, he took this same path with Guru > > > Dev of "attuning one's thinking to that of the teacher." > > > > > > If it's true that when you do this, you take on all > > > the qualities of mind of the teacher, what does that > > > say about the qualities of MMY's mind that are so > > > often criticized here? > > > > Go back and read the discussion. No one ever > > suggested that it was an all-or-nothing process, > > or that everyone is successful at modeling the > > mind of their teacher. I know that all I meant > > to suggest is that it's something that one works > > at over a long period of time -- years, or decades. > > And not everyone is successful at doing it. > > > > I would suggest that Maharishi wasn't particularly > > successful at doing it, since one of his first > > actions after Guru Dev's death was to not obey > > what he'd told him to do (that is, go into seclusion, > > and not teach). > > > > In addition, the effects of mind-modeling only "last" > > so long. After almost fifty years, I suspect that > > Maharishi has had an opportunity to pick up a few > > kinks of his own. :-) > > I take a different slant on "mind modelling". It has > little if anyting to do with "content". Its a process > of structuring freedom, of dissolving all inner > boundaries, attachments and "sanskaras". When that > is done, content "happens". It may be like the teachers', > it may be a quite new angle.
I would agree. One of the things I always found funny (in a sad kind of way) in organizations that believe you should try to model your thinking to some extent on the teacher's, is that they mistook what you call "content" for the "functionality" of the teacher's mind, the ways in which it perceived "content." One teacher I worked with loved movies, and the students would see them with him. It was common to see a bunch of students come out and be talking to each other about how much they loved the film, and how much spiritual value they'd found in it. Then the teacher gave his "review" and he didn't like the film at all. Instantaneously, many of the students who only a few minutes before had said they loved it all disliked the film. :-) > Ricks example of those around him now I think is false. > They are "works in progress". Better examples are SSRS. > Perhaps Chopra. For more finsihed works. > > Look at the holy tradition. Was each master a clone of > his master? Hardly, it seems. What is passed down is > consciousness awakened to itself. Content is not "the > thing". An even more striking example can be seen in the Dalai Lamas. *Theoretically*, they are the *same* mind, just in different bodies. I am actually open to this having been true, at least up to and including the Sixth Dalai Lama; after that I'm not convinced. What is fascinating if you read the actual works produced by the First Dalai Lama, and the Second, and then the Third, or the Fifth, is that they actually comment on this -- how strange it is to be essentially the same being, but completely different. Go figure. ------------------------ 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/
