|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
 Posted - Oct 31 2005 : 11:37:18 AM
|
Thanks Jim.
Yes Lili, I did find Eckhart Tolle helpful. I had more or less already heard everything he said, but for whatever reason, when he said it it hit home for me better than others.
-D |
 |
|
|
Yoda
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - Oct 31 2005 : 12:26:06 PM
|
"Should we be in the business at all of thinking that various spiritual teachers are the greatest beings that ever lived, or is that just all unhealthy nonsense?"
Great question!
Despite the benefits of darsan, the great teachers have been so gifted that their methods turn out to be a cruel joke for the typical person who wants enlightenment.
We need results and AYP is the place to get them.
Darshan without delivering the practices inculcates an impoverished strain of bhakti that we all can do without.
-Yoda |
|
|
|
riptiz
United Kingdom
741 Posts |
Posted - Oct 31 2005 : 12:46:06 PM
|
Dear Yogani,
Yes the link you gave for 'this house is on fire' was the corrct book.truly inspirational.
L&L
dave
'the mind can see further than the eyes' |
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Oct 31 2005 : 9:05:53 PM
|
Hari OM
~~~~~
Hello Folks,
the conversation is uplifting...
as I read I cannot help but think what I have been taught:
Enlightenment is the utmost in simplicity.
Perhaps we miss it due to this simplicty that makes us over-explain and ponder it so. I know I enjoy disussing Moksha and a chance to try and express IT ( Brahman)..it brings one closer via understanding, but engages the "root" of enlightenment - the quality of consciousness.
I aim not certain if you have the same experience, but all I know it is a satvic discussion.
Why is this?? I belive its due to engaging Consciousness which is IT.
Brahman is consciousness. No matter how close or far away I am [ or you are] from this thing call englightenment - it is right here in me expressed as consciousness , and when I engage IT, I am a better being for doing so.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Holy baths have been taken in sacred rivers like the Ganges, the sixteen kinds of gifts have been given, sacred mantras have been muttered by the crores - all these, verily are in vain to him by whom the Self has not been realised" the Upanishads
All glory to HIM who breathes out the Ved.
Peace,
Frank in SanDiego
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 01 2005 : 08:27:24 AM
|
"Should we be in the business at all of thinking that various spiritual teachers are the greatest beings that ever lived, or is that just all unhealthy nonsense?"
Not unhealthy in the physical sense, but definitely nonsense!
Thinking spiritual teachers are the greatest is what has led
millions of people astray, and delayed them on their paths.
I say test the knowledge and practices of teachers to see
where it leads you. Test it long enough to know if you're
on the right path. If you are on the right path, you should
be able to recognize new information God sends you for your
help.
Etherfish |
|
|
|
Richard
United Kingdom
857 Posts |
Posted - Nov 01 2005 : 10:00:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
"Should we be in the business at all of thinking that various spiritual teachers are the greatest beings that ever lived, or is that just all unhealthy nonsense?"
Etherfish
ST Paul in 1. Thessalonians V. 21 said: "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good".
I am not a practicing Christian but I think this answers the question perfectly.
Blessings
RICHARD |
|
|
|
tania
Australia
2 Posts |
Posted - Nov 04 2005 : 08:19:53 AM
|
What an enlightening topic :p
"Should we be in the business at all of thinking that various spiritual teachers are the greatest beings that ever lived, or is that just all unhealthy nonsense?"
I myself see them as no different than myself (I dont mean that in an egotistic way.. we are no different to anyone else). One can say they are me. So many greatly separate themselves in their own minds from the masters etc by not holding themselves in the same regard. We are all one though.
"Did ya ever wonder/ponder why are there not more Enlighted folks walk'n round?"
I dont think they often tend to show themselves in a like big time kind of way, we have enough big examples of them so why do we need more big examples?. An Enlightened one can help others in the simplest of ways, whether it is just a simple smile at someone .. or just a kind word. That could be enough to change anothers life. Some times the little deeds can be the greatest!
(I dont know how many will understand this but here goes, something which just came to me for the spiritually addicted lol, its fun making up something like zen koan :) . Can anyone figure it out....
Someone looks for a tree in a forest..never seeing the tree though. The tree got walked past hundreds of times but was never actually recognised. Where was the tree? Why did he/she miss seeing the tree?
"An enlightened person watches helplessly as people chase their own tales, investing more and more deeply into a dream filled with misery rather than awakening to a peaceful reality. "
Maybe the truely enlightened ones (I believe there are many different enlightenment levels) wouldnt be watching helplessly as they would see beyond the people chasing thier own tails.
Who knows but they may even possibly look on with amusement. I find it very funny when Im in the worstest situations possible.. it is at that time I find life the most funniest. (I think it is cause of the knowing that ive allowed myself to go down in the illusion.. and that is very funny). So maybe enlightened ones could possible look on at others who are in torment as being funny (as after all they would also be viewing them as part of themselves.. not separated from the other) (I aint saying that they wouldnt feel compassion too.. for that part which was experiencing illusion, but one can feel both). One part of myself thinks humanity is funny.
"Also you don't need to be enlightened to gain siddhis"
Yeah.. I know several with some siddhis and thou they are some enlightened, they still have a way to go before they get to what Id call enlightenment. One could be a very bad person and have siddhis (thou ive yet to meet anyone like that, but i believe that's possible). Not one of these people ive met thou outwardly display their siddhis to people and never for no reason as they aint something they care at all to go florting (lol is that the right word?) about. ive only seen them as a student (demostrated for reasons or while i was being taught for a reason or to help me or another in some way). |
|
|
|
rabar
USA
64 Posts |
Posted - Nov 04 2005 : 9:51:49 PM
|
I like the idea of using EEG/MRI to pin down the brain waves of an enlightened person. But also I think we need some sort of 'language' that cross-references all the traditions so that we can understand that, for example, when St. Teresa's speaks of "Orison of Quiet" this could correlate to Patanjali's 'Dyana with no distractions' and Pali Buddhism's "Samatha.'
I have combined some charts from John Curtis Gowan's book "Trance, Art and Creativity" (available on line at http://www.csun.edu/edpsy/Gowan/)and added some extra information. Unfortunately it's a .jpeg, which I don't think can be uploaded here. Please acces it on my website at:
www.raysender.com/gowanchart.html
I also have a chart of the 8 Buddhist jhana absorptions that are a stairway to nirvana. This latter is on my website at:
www.raysender.com/jhanaschart.html
Advice and suggestions gratefully received! |
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Nov 06 2005 : 5:15:54 PM
|
Hari Om
~~~~~
Tania was kind enough to post a response to the following:
"Did ya ever wonder/ponder why are there not more Enlighted folks walk'n round?"
" I dont think they often tend to show themselves in a like big time kind of way, we have enough big examples of them so why do we need more big examples?. An Enlightened one can help others in the simplest of ways, whether it is just a simple smile at someone .. or just a kind word. That could be enough to change anothers life. Some times the little deeds can be the greatest!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
One thing that is implied here, is with more Jivanmuki (~ enlightened) the society and environment improves without effort.
The laws of nature support these Beings no matter where they are or what they do. Society basks in thier light and benefits - the rains come on time, the proper seasons function - Hurricanes deposit their energy in the middle of the oceans;
The notion is simple - more enlightened beings produce a better society as they work/live and function in accord with the laws of nature that upholds life e.g. balance.
These trends indicate an upliftment in social consciousness - we look for them to indicate progress of pure consciousness being infused into all - as a beacon of hope for the future.
Regards,
Shanti
Frank in San Diego
|
|
|
|
nandhi
USA
362 Posts |
Posted - Nov 08 2005 : 6:39:19 PM
|
aum
inspiring thoughts! wonderful insights from each of you- thank you!
frank, a special thanks to you as mentioned 'Did ya ever wonder/ponder why are there not more Enlighted folks walk'n round? '
many years back, when i had thrown myself into the other india to seek my wholeness, i so badly wished to be in the company of 'realized' beings and by chance a 'siddhar', the ones journeying beyond enlightenment.
it was in thiruvannamalai that i asked this sage, who was with me on a pilgrimage, to show me a 'siddhar'. he asked me how i would expect a siddhar to me. i thought for a while and could not find an answer but the wisdom behind the questioned opened my mind to possibilities.
later during the day, my companion, this sage, pointed out to a person looking like a madman- torn clothes, hair matted but not like the ones who meditate in caves for years. this friend of mine said, 'this is a siddhar'. i fell on the ground to pay respects to this 'siddhar' who was about a 100 feet away from me and there were people walking between us. from that distance, this siddhar stopped, turned back, bends down his head to acknowledge me as though in telepathy he felt my surrender to him. after which, this siddhar walked away very quickly. later, i learnt that he was worshipped and respected by all who lived in thiruvannamalai and he never gets entangled in any human realities. this was the first of the many experiences of coming in the presence of a realized being.
it brings to fore what sri ramana maharishi said of those who are jiva muktas. very few can understand the ways of the enlightened as some may seem mad, eccentric or may be popular like amma or simply non-assuming. sri ramana quotes a tamil proverb which is , 'pampariyum pampinakaal' which means, 'it takes an enlightened being to recognize another. the rest of us can only guess who is and who is not'.
with so much of powerful energies now coming out of the ancient perfecting wisdom, (i.e, 10 years back easy access to all of this wisdom was not possible- on yogani's teachings or the gayatri mantra, or simple hatha yoga that as a fashion statement opens our experience to want to open more beautiful deeper doors), i agree with frank's seed of thought- the 1% critical mass is being acheived sooner!
when the eternal fire burns to be the seeker's need to want the sacred union as to be whole, the journey is complete within the life time as the momentum is set in ascendance. it could even be a larger percentage as blossoming awareness with each as the perfected seek to be perfect. guess this is what our daily 'yoga' is about!
enjoy our wholeness! all else overflows!
with folded hands!aum |
|
|
|
nandhi
USA
362 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2005 : 01:39:54 AM
|
aum
isnt it funny how the 'i' wags the tongue of the mind to write the 'experience' and yet every breath is still the journey? is being a jivamukti the knowing of that thought from which thoughts flow to then be experience and yet going beyond it to enjoy the supreme silence? is this supreme silence so divisible that on the external we can judge how much of it each one carries? can the sacred void be measured in each to judge or is the judge the one who wags the mind's tongue?
the guru is in you, as our divine friend yogani says, is the supreme surrendered silence that makes divine transformation an instant in recognition. the instant of the source's light that we hold in our sacred void to be mukti and the bliss of mukti to love this high that is a perch upstairs to be the witness of the human realm.
lets enjoy our realms as it blossoms! each a beauty! each in the sacred breath!
aum:)
with folded hands!aum |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2005 : 10:45:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by nandhi
'it takes an enlightened being to recognize another. the rest of us can only guess who is and who is not'.
Here's a way: "Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." Serious countenanced holy men with grim faces, those with a studiedly loving aura who wield their bright wise eyes like torches, anyone projecting a polished image of any sort, or who show any self consciousness whatsoever (even a trace)...all these people are still living in the realm of mind and ego. Those who remove mind and ego are utterly (but playfully) immersed in every action, and don't give a damn about appearances. Like a small child.
If you meet a holy man who you couldn't imagine coming right up to and playing slap hands with, s/he is still anchored in mind/samsara/ego. Sounds silly, but I think that can actually be used as a litmus test.
You mentioned Amma, and there's a lot to dislike about her organizationm and I'm not saying she's necessarily the saint they say she is (nor am I saying she's not). But the one time I saw her (I skipped the hug, fwiw), she was absolutely like a small child, and I'm completely convinced it wasn't for show. So there's something there.
Of course, child-like and childish are completely different things! :) |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2005 : 11:14:30 AM
|
quote:
anyone projecting a polished image of any sort, or who show any self consciousness whatsoever (even a trace)...all these people are still living in the realm of mind and ego.
I think this is right. To be self-conscious is to have a territory to defend. If I have a territory, I feel that there is something that is mine and not yours. If I feel that there is something that is mine and not yours, I am not beyond duality, and do not feel that there is only ONE.
I tend now tend to cast territoriality, in all its gross and subtle forms, as the hallmark of non-enlightenment. The word 'ego' is not always that clearly understood; to my mind, it is the territoriality that makes the ego the non-enlightenedness that it is.
-D |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2005 : 11:28:28 AM
|
David, it's about image. You lose attachment to self, so you certainly lose any notion of "self-image" (sound in stark contrast to many "spiritual teachers" you know?).
That's why there's a long tradition of matted hair "crazy" people (apart from the sannyasin, whose ascetic muss is a regimented emblem of tribe) like the guy Nandhi encountered. Such folks can be well respected in India (and there are surely many who are unknown and disrespected outside India!). You just stop coloring inside the lines, and you lose concern for your "place" in things because there's no longer a "you". (to digress: it's funny, this is repeated over and over in nearly every tradition: spiritual work means less and less "you," yet 99% of seekers ignore this, and expect to turn into superbeings with great powers and attainments who will be loved by all.)
Sounds like insanity, and I used to brood over whether there's actually a difference. But then I met (and dated!) some crazy people, and started reading up, and I found the diff. Psychosis never feels good. There's no bliss. And it's not relaxing.
|
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Nov 09 2005 11:30:23 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2005 : 12:09:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
David, it's about image. You lose attachment to self, so you certainly lose any notion of "self-image" (sound in stark contrast to many "spiritual teachers" you know?).
I mean 'territoriality' in the broadest sense, into which 'image' fits nicely. 'Image' is part of the territory that is defended. We worry about it because it helps establish the security of the territory.
This 'territoriality' goes way, way deep into the system, both in our development ( we start showing it as infants), and in our evolution, and therefore in our nervous systems, where it is deeply bound up with our emotions. It's way down there in the 'reptilian' brain. As soon as animals started to exist, they started to develop a sense of 'mine, and hell, I'll keep you out of it'. This is territoriality. Sex starts to play into it --- 'MY MATE', and 'MY SEXINESS' become big possessions. Possession of objects, and search for money and status among people is all part of it. My 'Image' is all about making people KNOW what, by hell, is MINE in particular, and not yours.
As we start to move onto the higher animals, the territory becomes less physical, but very real to the people who have it. A mathematician will very much feel that a particular equation is 'his' and that he deserves the credit for it. To an artist, his or her 'creation' will be their territory. There are many who pretend to be something better than the 'capatalistic system' with its territory, and their assumed-better-ness, and their alternative system, is their territory. And so it goes on and on. It's all a generalization of the machinery that makes a toad think that part of the mud-hole is, by hell, his, and not yours.
When you get on to these fake-enlightened people, they are using their 'image' to defend their territory and they are all bound up in that. Their 'territory' is what they see as their assumed status as a teacher. They will defend it by defending that image -- by not saying 'I don't know' when they should; by not admitting mistakes when they have made them; by not apologizing when they should apologize, by not being seen to be learning when they are learning. They will be particularly be unwilling to be seen to be learning from you, because, in their territorial minds, that is to give you a piece of their territory, and to give some of their territory away, or share it, is diminishing and threatening.
There is a glorious trap there because to be enlightened, you need to get beyond territoriality, but having the status of 'enlightened' is glorious territory that the ego is so unwilling to give up. What a wonderful, beautiful Catch-22!
And so, they are still gloriously stuck in the same thing that the poor mud-toad is stuck in. The physical mud-hole to be defended is long gone -- the defense of the territory is still there.
And it's still just a friggin' mud-hole. Whatever is mine-and-not-yours is a friggin mud-hole. The kingdom of heaven is thrown away for a friggin' mud-hole.
So what I watch out for, as a mark of non-enlightenment, is the territoriality. What image are they defending? What do they think is theirs-and-not-mine? Are they ready to share glory with me or are they going to defend themselves against having to do that?
Because if they have a feeling of 'theirs-and-not-mine', and all the defenses that go around that, they just haven't broken deeply into non-dual god-awareness. It just isn't possible. They may fool thousands, millions of people, but they won't fool me (moo-hoo, hoo, hooo haa ha ha  ) and, most importantly, they haven't fooled 'God' and so the poor things stay outside the Kingdom of Heaven while playing the inadequately consoling game of faking being inside it.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 09 2005 2:36:29 PM |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2005 : 12:22:52 PM
|
A few random thoughts....
Most fake enlightened people are, I think, sincere. They've been trapped in mind but don't realize. Chogyam Trungpa's "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" is THE work on this.
There is a glorious trap there because to be enlightened, you need to get beyond territoriality, but having the status of 'enlightened' is glorious territory that the ego is so unwilling to give up. What a wonderful, beautiful Catch-22!"
Every time you hit a paradox (which is to mind what an energy block is to prana or an inflexible part is to body), the trick is to relax into it. |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Nov 09 2005 12:25:25 PM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2005 : 8:56:07 PM
|
I'm currently reading "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" and it has been extremely enlightening. He makes the point that the ego will use anything to bolster itself - even spirituality. I originally started reading the book so that I might better understand the egocentric people in my life, but discovered by the end of chapter 1 that I was reading about myself.  We're all cast from the same mold and egos abound.
David - you make many good points about the "fake-enlightened" and territoriality, but it's also the case that some of those leaders are placed there by their followers. Remember Pastor Dimsdale in The Scarlet Letter? No matter how hard he tried to persuade his parishioners that he was a cad, they would see nothing but his saintliness, and it eventually drove him mad (literally). He knew that his was a mudhole, and yet his "tribe" called it a palace. Do you think it may be the case that some of these leaders' territories are imposed from without? Because surely these men and women who have achieved some degree of "spirituality" or higher consciousness are not completely vainglorious; there is a certain territoriality that goes with the territory, and there is a degree to which the "parish" is responsible to alter its teacher's raging egocentrism.
meg |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2005 : 9:50:49 PM
|
I have a friend who must be enlightened then. He is very much like a child. Not responsible at all, and totally immersed in the moment.
Kids always like him. he's not territorial at all and would never notice someone invading his space. He does, however, tend to just take whatever he can get, often takes credit for what other people have done, not by lying, but by implication. he can't be trusted, and cheats and uses people around him, but is so charming all the time and appears to be loving life so much that they don't say much. Some people have had enough and just stay away. Girls always like him and he loves stealing girls from other guys. He's always smiling and laughing like a child. |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2005 : 9:56:32 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
I have a friend who must be enlightened then.
As I said above, child-like and childish are completely different things.
And while enlightened people are child-like, that doesn't mean child-like (much less childish) people are enlightened. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2005 : 10:07:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by meg
David - you make many good points about the "fake-enlightened" and territoriality, but it's also the case that some of those leaders are placed there by their followers.
Hi Meg,
I think the enlightenment-fakers are probably *always* complicit in faking their enlightenment, although they may not know it. 'The Scarlet Letter' is a work of fiction and the story of Pastor Dimsdale makes an interesting (and funny) irony, but I don't think it is realistic. There is something similar in Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'.
Faking enlightened-guru status is always a two-way dance of corruption. The dance won't get anywhere without delusion on the part of the disciples, and won't get anywhere without delusion on the part of the guru. It's a narcissistic dance, and the narcissist won't get anywhere without his or her codependents. The fake gurus are playing narcissists roles, and the followers are narcissistic codependents.
The enlightenment-fakers are always complicit, often in very subtle ways. They may indeed be ambivalent about taking the enlightened status, and do some things that work against it, while doing even stronger things that work towards it. For example, they may on the one hand heavily express 'We are all equal', then on the other hand participate heavily in cultivating a 'myth' of themselves in which they are very, very special enlightened beings. They may have deluded themselves that, because they are in some ways not pushing their enlightened status, or even apparently working against it at times, that they are off the hook for pushing it and cultivating it.
So there may or may not be 'official' myth-repudiation on the one hand, but there is unofficial myth-cultivation going on on the other. And there is the delusion that the myth-repudiation gets them off the hook for the deliberate myth-cultivation. It's a delusion that they and their followers just don't have what it takes to see through -- there is a shortage of insight involved -- it's as if having a sign 'Call-girls keep out!' on your house by day gets you off the hook for any possibility of having them secretly visiting you at night!
Take Maharishi for example. Some people defend him by saying he 'never said that he was enlightened', as if this is a show of humility on Maharishi's part. The truth is that, while Maharishi never 'said he was enlightened' verbally, expressly, he did it nonverbally with extreme volume and with all the power he possibly could, and these non-verbal means are more powerful than the verbal ones.
By the way, despite the book you are reading, I've met followers of Chogyam Trunga who are totally caught up in delusions about Trungpa's divine guru status and perfection. Did Trungpa cultivate a delusionary myth about himself? Sure he did. Writing a book about not cultivating these delusions -- and it may well be the best book yet written on the topic -- is another kind of behavior that does not get you off the hook for cultivating these delusions. J. Krishnamurti said all these 'I am not a guru' kind of things, but did he self-consciously cultivate a delusional myth about himself? Sure he did. His delusion about himself was implicit throughout his life but became explicit on his deathbed.
No, the real ways to stop faking are the ones I mentioned -- first get out of those myth-cultivating games, and doing that includes having ordinary behavior which really works against the myth: honestly say "I don't know" when you don't know; admit your mistakes when you make them, don't hide them; admit you are learning, and show how, and from whom; ask people questions when you need to know; apologize when you should (and inevitably, if you lead a life at all in the world, there will be times when you should). These are all things which, from a narcissistic (egotistical) position, appear to diminish your status and are exceedingly uncomfortable for the egotist. From a non-egotistical position (that of the truly enlightened) they don't diminish your status at all, and are easy, natural and obviously appropriate.
Did Maharishi and Krishnamurti and Trungpa have these proper ordinary behaviors to the proper extent? Of course not. Except the behaviors might show up occasionally and with great show, which is just a continuation of the myth-cultivation.
No Meg, I pronounce them 'guilty as charged'. 'My followers made me do it' is no defense! 
-D
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 10 2005 11:12:41 AM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2005 : 11:30:32 AM
|
David - I'm not suggesting that the teacher is innocent of his/her inflation, only that his rank is often initially imposed from without. It could be argued that Jesus falls into this category, as he repeatedly told his followers that they would do even greater things than he. But few would type Jesus as an egomaniac or enlightenment freak. Nor was he territorial. What, then, separates the true guru from the fake guru? I don't think it's territoriality at all, altho that is a symptom. I think that it's a propensity toward the mythic, as you have said. The need to be seen as the hero who has journeyed to the depths of somewhere-or-other, and returned god-like with sage advice for all. But how do you recognize the guru-narcissist? Because few of them are runnng around preaching, "Mine, but not yours", and they have no red letters blazed in their chests. This is what I think is the sign of an overripe ego: location, location, location. Where is he or she in relation to his disciples? If always dead center, then there is a problem. And this is where the student's responsibility comes in, b'c often it is she who places him there. And so on, ad nauseum. |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2005 : 11:38:33 AM
|
| Clarification: Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that his enlightenment wasn't exclusive, but still they insisted upon placing him at the center; they didn't get the core message that their teacher was stating. Was that Jesus' fault? Could he have been any clearer? |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2005 : 12:37:59 PM
|
Hi Meg,
thanks for the reply which I enjoyed.
>> David - I'm not suggesting that the teacher is innocent of his/her inflation, only that his rank is often initially imposed from without.
OK. That may indeed be true -- the start of the temptation comes from outside in certain cases.
>> It could be argued that Jesus falls into this category, as he repeatedly told his followers that they would do even greater things than he. But few would type Jesus as an egomaniac or enlightenment freak. Nor was he territorial.
I still think that all that self-mythologization contains territoriality at its roots, though you may not agree, but we need not fuss over that because we have lots of agreement in this stimulating discussion.
Jesus is a special case in a number of ways. First, it's hard to know about the real man. What was the real Jesus? Secondly, it is true that you have no control after you die, so we can't blame people for mythologizing you after you die.
However, I want to say a few things about 'Jesus', and I put the name in quotes because I can't separate fact from fiction. So the 'Jesus' that I talk about could be as the result of a (distorted) record, which could be entirely different to the real man.
>> But few would type Jesus as an egomaniac or enlightenment freak. Nor was he territorial.
Maybe few would type Jesus as an egomaniac, but now I am going to throw you something you may find surprising. I'm not sure that 'Jesus' did not have narcissistic, egomaniacal tendencies. Look at what the gospel says. Something like 'No on can come to the father except through me'.
He totally seems to be on a messianic-megalomaniacal trip at times. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up", "Peter, who do you say that I am", and so on.
I think you are on the ball when you emphasize myth-making. But look, don't take 'Jesus' off the hook --- from what I can see, 'Jesus' thought he was the messiah. 'He' may indeed have shown humility at times, but whatever there was in him hooked right into the myths that were floating around him and he placed himself center-stage in those myths (See your own lines above, 'This is what I think is the sign of an overripe ego: location, location, location. Where is he or she in relation to [the world]?' ). One may place onself at the center of the going myths, despite the fact that reality just does not bear it out -- one may have in reality no special extreme powers or abilities that really match what those myths are about. That is the way of messiahs. They think they are the messiah, because something in them tells them that they are the messiah, and that thing is egotism/narcissism. Not outward reality, but inner egotism, as it interacts with 'sacropiety' (my word for, roughly, religious tendencies).
And you can think you are the messiah, and then you can say to people "Greater things than these shall you do because I go to the father". Does that get you off the hook for building your messiah-hood out of egotistical/narcissistic tendencies? No, not in the least! Maybe it's at best the myth-repudiation half of the myth-repudiation/myth-cultivation game, at worst, it's not even myth-repudiation because 'I go to the father' may have a sense of "I have bigger fish to fry". So this may be the real meaning:
quote:
"When you have learned all I have figured out for you, and grown enough from it, even greater things than these shall you do because I shall be long gone by then, having bigger fish to fry."
It fits right in there with the myth-making. It's not even on the 'humble' myth-repudiation part of the machine!
Here it is in chemical reaction form:
Religous tendencies + Great Egotism --> Messiah
And 'Siddhi Guru' is just another word for messiah. Enlightenment doesn't 'enter the equation' at all!
Regards,
-David
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 10 2005 5:57:33 PM |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2005 : 12:56:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by meg
Clarification: Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that his enlightenment wasn't exclusive, but still they insisted upon placing him at the center; they didn't get the core message that their teacher was stating. Was that Jesus' fault? Could he have been any clearer?
That, too, was satirized in Monty Python's Life of Brian
Jesus: "You must think for yourSELVES!"
Crowd (en masse): "We must think for ourSELVES!" |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2005 : 1:07:13 PM
|
P.S.
Thanks for the compliments folks. You may think I am 'on a roll' this morning, but even greater things than this shall ye write, for I go now unto my lunch.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Where's the Enlightened?
