TurquoiseB wrote:
> That's the thing that so amazes me here sometimes,
> and makes me wonder about spiritual traditions that
> claim to not only have all the answers, but the
> *definitive* answers.
>
So, this your "definitive" answer, to argue over
nitpicky details or interpretations of nitpicky
esoteric concepts that only you care about at
"Holy Man Jams" that you never attended,
delivered with pretty much a "Fuck you!"
inflection.
Amazingly cool, I guess, if that's what you want
out of life is to nitpick with Judy and Rory
about how Freddy levitated and then flew through
the air.
> Well said, Peter.
>
> In Boulder, CO, back when he was alive, Chogyam
> Trungpa sponsored a number of "Holy Man Jams."
> The schtick was to invite noted spiritual teachers
> from different traditions and put them up on stage
> together to discuss spirituality. I never got to
> attend any of them, but several close friends who
> did said that they were a hoot, because almost
> without exception (Trungpa himself being one), they
> almost always devolved into arguments.
>
> Different teachers from different Hindu traditions
> would argue over nitpicky details or interpretations
> of nitpicky esoteric concepts that only they cared
> about. Different Buddhist teachers would argue over
> similar nitpicky details. And naturally they would
> argue across traditions. But the bottom line is that
> almost without exception they would argue, and the
> bottom line of *each and every participant* in the
> arguments was Peter's wonderful line above, delivered
> with pretty much the same "Fuck you!" inflection that
> he managed to put into his post -- "My concept is
> better than your concept (or experience). Read it
> and weep!"
>
> I consider myself fortunate to have run into a few
> teachers who didn't argue, and train their students
> to do the same. The reason is that they never *taught*
> that "This concept is better than another concept."
> They never *taught* that "This technique is better
> than another technique." They never taught "better"
> at all, just "This is how things look from this point
> of view, and this is how the *same* things look from
> this other point of view...both are valid, and many
> others are valid, too."
>
> I understand that there are many who seem to enjoy
> believing that they've "got all the answers." Maharishi
> is certainly one of them ("Every question is a perfect
> opportunity for the answer we have already prepared.").
> And I can see how that would be comforting for some
> people, to believe that they've got the "definitive"
> answer to all the questions of life, and the definitive
> "How it works" to all the works of creation.
>
> Me, I don't know. It's still a mystery to me, and I
> like that just fine. I think that there is just as much
> likelihood that someone from a Hindu tradition has as
> much of a clue as someone from a Buddhist or Christian
> or Muslim tradition does. But at the same time I think
> they're all just *clues*. I'm not convinced that *any*
> of them have solved the mystery. And the more that they
> argue with others and try to assert that they *have*
> definitively solved the mystery of life, the *less* I'm
> convinced that they have solved the mystery. And the
> more I feel comfortable with having no clue myself.
>
> What, after all, can be "sure" that it's got things all
> figured out? Only a self.
>
> And the more that self believes that it *has* got things
> all figured out, and the more it argues with other selves
> for the supremacy of its ideas and concepts, IMO the more
> likely that self is to *remain* a self.
>
> Cool, I guess, if that's what you want out of life.
>
