You meet a person on the road and ask him which way to New York. He points to the correct direction. You ask him if he's been there and he says no. But he still gave you the correct direction.
Likewise I would assert that as long as the teacher knows the techniques they do not need to be enlightened (of course this is how TM works). You just need the techniques. However most teachers with the techniques probably have achieved enlightenment even if there aren't dozens of people dancing around them worshiping them as saints. The latter is a westerners expectation. Expertise in fields like tantra don't depend on enlightenment as they do knowledge of that field. It is possible for someone to be enlightened but not know those techniques at all. yifuxero wrote: > now wait a minute...; there's plenty of evidence suggesting that if people > want to get E'd, they should approach and learn from an Enlightened Teacher. > To suggest the contrary would be illogical: that people can spontaneously get > E'd more so than with a Guru. > > Of course, contrarian singletons are always possible in rare instances. > However, a brief investigation at David Godman's website will uncover a > number of cases pointing to the importance/desirability of having an > Enlightened teacher. How is this different than learning how to play a > violin.? ...and getting an expert teacher in that field? > ... > The part about not wanting to...this is an obvious premise. Nobody is > suggesting that one "should" pursue such an objective, at least not me. But > FFL is a forum originally at least, oriented toward such concepts; not > targeted originally for those with other interests. This is not to say that > I am in any way demeaning your interests; but logic simply falls on the side > of : > .... > a. IF one wants to attain a goal or competancy in some field, > b. THEN logic supports the notion that a teacher having the same competancy > may be more beneficial than not having a teacher. > > Here's a typical case: (Lakshmana Swamy) > http://www.davidgodman.org/books/nomind.shtml > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozg...@...> wrote: > >> TurquoiseB wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" <yifuxero@> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Depends on one's goals; but I'd say yes, at the very least >>>> getting into the subtle Shakti levels. That is, if one's goal >>>> is the big E; or perhaps gaining Sidhis (comparable in some >>>> respects to the learning of more ordinary skills, such as >>>> playing a violin: having a good teacher would be advisable >>>> along with plenty of solo practice.) >>>> Besides, why would one not have a teacher? >>>> >>>> >>> How 'bout if one is not interested in such "goals." >>> Been there, done that with enlightenment and siddhis. >>> Just more states of consciousness in my book, no more >>> intrinsically interesting or "higher" than any other. >>> So I'm not in the market for anyone who wants to help >>> me achieve some goal that he or she feels is cool but >>> I do not. >>> >>> >>> >> Of course your realize you are jaded. You've been there and got the >> t-shirt. You've learned that a pop guru wasn't what you were looking >> for. But you had to go through the wash to find that out. Same here. >> Ya gotta remember most people don't know squat about what they are >> looking for but just some idea they want some instruction. >> >> >> >>> If I wanted to learn a particular skill -- spiritual >>> or mundane -- I would of course have no problem working >>> with a teacher who knew more about that subject than I >>> did. But as a teacher, not a guru. >>> >>> >> Exactly. My tantra teacher is more like a buddy who shares what he >> learned. And one on one instead of sitting in a crowd of people I can >> ask very tough questions. And in return I get to help him with his >> computer, web site, TV, etc. ;-) >> >>> >>> >>>> If this were not the case, we'd have evidence that without >>>> the Buddha, Shankara, Guru Dev, Ramana, etc; people would be >>>> spontaneously getting Enlightened without Gurus. I haven't >>>> seen that. >>>> >>>> >>> I do not get your logic. I have seen no evidence that >>> suggests that *with* the Buddha, Shankara, Guru Dev, >>> and Ramana people are getting enlightened. I have >>> heard claims, but that's all they are. >>> >> Yes, that kind of leaves out the people who had some spiritual >> experiences even in childhood and didn't know what they were. Though >> rare there are these people. In some cases they get born into families >> with some kind of spiritual background and learn early on. Others may >> be born to someone who off the cuff makes small but deep remarks about >> the nature of life. Or maybe something like TM made things "click" and >> that was enough. Again we're probably jaded or what people would call >> "old souls" who knew the walk before coming in this world. I suspect >> many others hiding out in this cove are like that too. >> >> > > > >
