--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings
<no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the
> > > > > > Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick?
> > > > >
> > > > > Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic
> > > > > figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this
> > > > > melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows
> > > > > > the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants.
> > > > >
> > > > > The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom
> > > > > one could pretty well class as a "peon," since I
> > > > > am not rich and am not a member of any established
> > > > > Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in
> > > > > public several times and meet with him privately
> > > > > for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime.
> > > > >
> > > > > If a spiritual teacher becomes inaccessible, it's
> > > > > because he wants it that way, not because of the
> > > > > size of the organization.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Bull.
> > >
> > >
> > > I second that emotion.
> > >
> > > OffWorld
> >
> >
> > I find this utterly fascinating.
> >
> > What do you think it is that these two TMers are
> > reacting to here, and are so uptight about? From my
> > side I was just reporting what went down -- my
> > friends, who *are* involved with the DL and with
> > Tibetan Buddhism, invited me to go with them to
> > see him in Paris. After one of the public talks,
> > I went with them backstage and waited with them
> > while they waited to talk with the Dalai Lama.
> > When it was their time to meet with him, I walked
> > up, too, and gave him a kata and thanked him for
> > a particular book of his (and a particular part
> > of that book) that I'd enjoyed and he asked which
> > part and I told him and he smiled. That was it.
> >
> > The thing is, if it were Maharishi we were talking
> > about, I wouldn't have been able to have that much
> > time with him unless I had a check for several
> > million bucks in my hand. And I think that there is
> > a possibility that what Sparaig and Off are reacting
> > to is that they've never even been *that* close to the
> > spiritual teacher they've worked with for...what is
> > it now, 30 years?
> >
> > Guys, that's not my fault. It's the teacher's
> > fault. He doesn't WANT to meet you. Never has, never
> > will. Maharishi likes seclusion because he doesn't like
> > people very much. The Dalai Lama's more of a people
> > person. Different strokes for different folks, that's
> > all.
>
> I might comment further that "different strokes
> for different folks" works for students, as well.
> As we all know, there are students of Maharishi's
> who have spent well over 30 years studying with
> him who have not only not met him, they've managed
> to not even be in the same lecture hall with him,
> even if they would have been sharing that intimate
> gathering with 2000 other students in the lecture
> hall. Something's always "come up" such that they
> couldn't make the dozens of courses during which
> they would have had the opportunity to see him.
>
> Why? Different strokes for different folks. Some
> seekers want a kind of "distant" relationship with
> their spiritual teacher, one that (in my opinion)
> allows them to *keep* him at a distance, and thus
> to never encounter anything that might be jarring
> to their selves' ideas about him or to those selves
> themselves. Other seekers want a more personal
> relationship, and for those types of seekers, there
> are more personal teachers out there in the world,
> teachers who are more than willing to meet the
> seekers and work with them on a more personal level.
>
> No harm, no foul, either way. Different strokes for
> different folks, be they teacher or student. But to
> suggest that once a teacher's organization gets to
> a certain size they *can* no longer interface directly
> with their students is silly and simply not true. It
> all depends on the teacher, and on the student.
>
Perhaps some Byron Katie inquiry around this would help you.
