--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > 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:
Perhaps you see only three because (a) you mistakenly accord anything said against a path or teacher the status of "information" that should automatically lead followers of that path or teacher to reconsider their commitment; and (b) mistakenly assume that no "resistance" to it could have been preceded by analysis that found the "information" in question to be inaccurate and/or unfair. And then there's the substantial body of "information" from some here that involves vicious putdowns of the seekers themselves for following a particular path or teacher, and for speaking up when they find "information" about their path or teacher to be inaccurate or unfair. <snip> > 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. I suspect you would find the first two a lot less unpleasant to interact with if you would simply present your "information" about the teacher or path without automatically viewing critiques thereof as "resistance to change" and responding with attacks on the critics. You *might* even take the time to analyze the criticisms--on the off-chance that perhaps there is some substance to them--instead of, you know, putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, "I can't hear you."
