>>> Or unless of course you knew and talked with one of M's closest >>> confidants who helped set up SCI and the birth of the sidhi >>> program... :-) >>> >>> Having done that you'd know that he knew none of this stuff, >>> but had to seek it out with couriers dispatched to various >>> locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also >>> not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of >>> SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not >>> a yogi! >>> >>> I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain >>> truth of the matter. >> >> Nothing would surprise me anymore.... > > That's of course not to say that we can't still feel some > appreciation for what good we did receive, but sometimes > the going just gets too weird for me.
I think that what you've put your finger on, Vaj, is the credo/path of this discussion group, as opposed to the general trend of Fundamentalism we see on the planet, and in (sadly) many spiritual groups that are active on that planet right now. As I see it, *so* much of spiritual seekers' energy seems to be wasted on *resisting* and "refuting" information that might indicate to them (if they analyzed it) that they might have been hasty (or even downright wrong) in considering the things that have been taught to them the truth (much less the Truth). I see three common reactions to such information: The first is the Passive True Believer approach: this involves sticking one's fingers into one's ears and saying, "I can't HEAR you...I can't HEAR you." It's extremely effective; if you prac- tice this sadhana, you can maintain the original set of spiritual teachings that were given to you almost indefinitely. Fundamentalism at its best, the path that "true" True Believers would follow, because it would never *allow* them to question the dogma. The second is the Agressive True Believer approach. This sadhana involves getting into the face of anyone who presents information that challenges the dogma the seeker holds to be true. The goal is similar to sticking one's fingers in one's ears in that if you shout loudly enough, you are equally unable to hear any new information. But it has the added advantage of keeping your attention occupied on "fighting" the "challenge" to your dogma, so that you have no attention left to analyze the new information. This is the path followed by "closet doubter" True Believers; the more they see themselves as "defenders" of the faith, the less they have to deal with their own doubts about the faith. A different flavor of Fundamentalism, the one most in vogue on planet Earth at this time. Both of the paths above are characterized by *resistance* to any idea that might force the seeker to *change* what they currently believe or what they currently practice as a spiritual sadhana. Both seem to me to represent Newton's first law -- an attempt by objects in motion to forever remain in motion on the same path (or by objects in stasis to remain in stasis, however you prefer to see it). :-) The third is represented (I think) by Fairfield Life, or at least by its credo. It says, basically, "Y'know...I've got no real complaints about my spiritual path so far, but I have no need to pros- elytize it as the 'best' path or to 'defend' its dogma. Possibly as a result, I'm open to information about other paths that might either clue me in to more effective ways to pursue my own, or that might reveal to me other interesting paths it might be fun to check out." There is no resistance per se in such an approach. Instead there seems to be an inherent willingness to change direction at any time, if another path becomes more interesting than the one we are currently following. Who *knows* which of these three approaches is more effective in the long run, but it's pretty much a given which of the three is more pleasant to interact with. I suspect that this is because the first two are based on resisting change, while the third is based on surfing it gracefully.
