--- In [email protected], "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > TorquiseB writes: Snipped > When you come into contact with the teacher's aura, the > part of you that *already* has access to these different > states of mind *recognizes* them in the teacher's aura. > Seeing these states of mind in another "wakes up" the > same states of mind in the seeker. It's as if the seeker > had forgotten that such levels of being awake were > available to him, but now that he's run into them, > living and breathing and laughing in front of him in > the form of the teacher, he realizes that the *same* > states of mind are within him, and available if he > just chooses to access them. > > This is how I honestly think it works. I no longer > believe in the "darshan" theory of empowerment. I think > that that view, that the teacher "does" something to > "cause" the awakening in the student, is completely > understandable. That's how it *feels*, after all. You > see the teacher and you get high. Therefore they must > have "done something" to you. > > Why I prefer my "recognition theory" is because it puts > the responsibility and the impetus for self realization > where it belongs, in the lap of the *seeker*, not the > teacher. It *allows* for there being a benefit in seeing > saints and realized masters, but not in the sense that > one goes to them hoping that they'll zap you somehow > with woo-woo rays and provide a "hit" of enlightenment. > If one operates under the assumption that the "recog- > nition theory" adequately describes the mechanics of > what happens when you sit satsang with or otherwise > interact with a powerful teacher, you are less likely > to fall into the cult ruts, projecting onto the teacher > magical abilities to zap you into enlightenment. Or > their negative counterpart, projecting onto them some > ability to hypnotize large groups of people at will. > > Tom T: > According to a friend who has a phd in cognitive learning the above > has some validity. Those who have been on the path for some time and > have done long times in meditation sooner or later bump up against the > NOTHINGESS. Many just get scared and boogy others hang in and try to > avoid the nothingness but kind of dance around it. If they hang in or > through some other coaccident they eventually cognize this as the > everything that IS. According to my friend, humans are put together so > that they can only recognize something they have previously known > before. Well nothingness is something most of us were not prepared > for. Those who hang in sometimes just get it out of pure stubborness. > Others get it from a teacher who is a living embodiment of the > everythingess. Eventualy one can sometimes see that your experience is > your understanding if you are willing to to just be OK with the > nothingness. One time I heard Gangaji say, on a video, just be willing > to be Nothing. That little mahavakya stuck in a loop that just kept > going round and round for a day. All of a sudden I realized I didn't > have to be willing to be nothing, I was nothing. Cool. Tom T >
My experience is that the 'bound' self is built upon the unwillingness to be nothing, the fear of that... Sort of a continuous looking away. JohnY 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
