--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just to clarify, while I understand that some > people feel inspired by the idea of avatars, > I just don't "get" what inspires people about > the idea of avatars. > > It seems to me that the idea that someone is > an 'avatar' creates a kind of artificial > distinction between the seeker and the sought. > They are more than human, and you are "only" > human. If they achieved what they achieved by > being more than human, what chance do you have? > > I think that the possibility that Buddha or Christ > were *just normal guys" is FAR more inspiring. If > they can be normal guys and realize their enlight- > enment, then so can I. But if they only "got there" > as a result of (in Buddha's case) being born as a > result of a white elephant with six white tusks > entering his Mom's right side or (in Christ's case) > as a result of nepotism, what does that say about > *our* chances? > > Everybody's got their own taste when it comes to > spiritual stories and spiritual myths. And if > some get off on stories of avatars, and it inspires > them, cool. But I get off on stories about normal, > everyday people with all sorts of normal, everyday > faults and normal, everyday problems realizing their > normal, everyday enlightenment *anyway*. > > THAT conveys the essential message of spirituality > for me. 'Avatars' does not. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > > > When I said it didn't matter whether the man Jesus ever > > > lived, I didn't mean to imply that I believe in avatars. > > > I've never met one. And stories about them, are not > > > verifiable by me. To me, all that lives is holy, and > > > I can't see ascribing more holiness to some folks. > > > > The term 'avatar' is part of an ancient > > tradition, Angela. It's used to prevent > > enlightenment. > > > > What you do is pick someone who has a clue, > > someone whose teachings *could* potentially > > help you to realize your enlightenment, and > > then, since your self *really* doesn't want > > that, you call them an 'avatar' and pretend > > that they are "special" and you are not. > > Then you never have to try to get as high > > as they are. > > > > After all, as 'avatars,' they are better than > > you are, the son or daughter of God, right? > > Incarnations of the divine, and all that. > > > > And you, you're just a normal human being. > > > > These avatar guys and gals were born with a > > silver phurba in their mouths, and you got > > just a tit. What chance do you have to really > > realize your enlightenment like they did, eh? > > > > Better to just cruise and let them do all the > > work and hope for the best. It probably won't > > be enlightenment, but at least you'll get to > > feel "special" yourself because you're hangin' > > with an avatar. > > > > :-) > > > > Just my opinion...
If you look at it in another perspective, these avatars including Christ were normal human beings. They were born from a woman and they took on a human body. Specifically, Christ was born into a humble family and became a carpenter to make a living. He suffered and died like any other humans. Isn't that human enough? I believe the scriptures are saying that if he can be enlightened, ordinary human beings throughout the world can do the same. IMO, this is the message MMY is trying to convey in that the human physiology is unique in that it can retain and maintain Being and the effects of it. Why do you suppose he is emphasizing the siddhis, including levitation and invisibility? At the end of the day, if you are satisfied with what you think and who you are, then just BE you. That is the only way to be happy.
