Quick comment at the bottom: **
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rory: "As I said when I first met you here, I am completely willing to > be "unenlightened" with you in your world, if you are willing to > be "enlightened" with me in mine -- will that do? Can we be > both "ordinary" and "special" simultaneously together? I will if you > will. Actually, I will even if you won't ... and I don't mean that as > a put-down, just telling you who I am, while respecting your freedom > of choice to be who you want :-)" > > > ME: Thanks for replying in detail. I knew I could count on some > thoughtful material in response. There have been good perspectives > offered by others in this thread giving me food for thought. The > paragraph above is very T.S. Elliot. It is too clever to mess with. > Very entertaining. > > I don't think I lump all Gurus in the same camp, but I think the ones > who have built up big organizations are a bit power oriented. I don't > know about the quieter ones who never built up big Western followings. > I did spend some time in Christian monasteries with some monks who > had a cool vibe that I wouldn't judge as being on a power trip. I > tend to believe that gurus who end up with millions of dollars > probably wanted them and worked hard to get them. I hold them as > different from my value system as The Donald or any other heavy empire > builder. My feelings about gurus in general is a work in progress. > Right now the jury is deadlocked and keeps requesting more > information. It is fine with me if I never get a verdict. > > I do come across exceptional people from time to time and they really > seem to be functioning from a different POV. For me a person's POV on > life is the driving factor. I am very influenced by the thinking of > Albert Ellis (who just died RIP) and his view of how our conceptual > models effect our happiness. (Rational Emotive Therapy) > > I found this exchange helpful and I appreciate your response. I think > we do get a skewed vision of each other from our writing. We are all > using our writing here for our own self discovery. Your point about > the nature of writing was a valuable one. > > One of the paradoxes of the TM system is that anyone claiming to have > reached the goal was always viewed with great suspicion when I was > involved. I can imagine the rash of S-- you would have gotten for > announcing your own perspective on your experiences. Inherent in a > view that you are no longer resisting your enlightenment and guys like > me are, is a sort of hierarchy implied. But I can look past that > since I carry my own versions of ranking people in my world. It is > really none of my business how you are viewing me as long as the way > you communicate with me has the friendly connection that I sense from > your post. **snip to end** Curtis, your last comment (last sentence, immediately above) re the "friendly connection" represents for me, too, the "best" of FFL. Whenever people here are willing to presume the best of other posters here it makes me feel good. Even some of the more gadfly-oriented posts can be inherently respectful of the audience and I appreciate the more spirited discussions that sometimes result. It's disappointing, however, when folks presume the worst, take offense, and start the slamming. This thread fits in the first category and I agree that it has been very helpful. Marek
