--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > I look at various spiritual teachers, and conclude that they do > operate in a different mode, and have indeed accessed different > levels of awareness.
I have no problem with many people, including myself, having accessed (either briefly or permanently) "different levels of awareness." I have seen absolutely no indication that these are anything BUT different levels of subjective awareness; that is, I have seen no indication that they improve any "operating" in the real world. > And I say mostly from my own experiences. I'd love to know what experiences lead you to believe that the teachers you're referring to "operate in a different mode." > And I don't follow a teacher per se. But I have been influenced > by MMY, and more particularly the Indian, or easter[n] system of > belief. Your call, and your right. But if you want to be accurate, don't conflate "Indian" with "Eastern." There are many different belief systems in India itself, much less across Asia. Hindu ain't Buddhist. Hindu ain't Taoist. Hindu ain't Shinto. And as we've seen by "authority wavers" here, Hindu ain't even Hindu; you'd be lucky to find agreement between two Shankaracharyats, much less across the full range of Hinduism. > I am not sure if those in the "unbelievers" camp disregard > all that is offered along those lines, but I have found these > teachings to be releveant to my own experience in many ways. A meaningless statement. First because you felt the need to use the term "unbelievers." Second because you don't define "these teachings." WTF are you talking about exactly? For example, if you are trying to say that sitting meditation has potential value, I don't think you'll get an argument about that from either Curtis or I. If you were talking "mindfulness," I'd say that it has *great* value, potentially much more than sitting meditation. The siddhis? No value whatsoever, and that would be true even if anyone in the TMO had ever actually manifested them, which they haven't. Jyotish, S-V, and that sort of crap? Actual "negative value" in my opinion, because other than feeding the placebo effect all they do is separate people from their hard-earned money. So you've got to be more specific about "teachings" if you want to be taken seriously. > And I not willing to chalk it up to the power of suggestion. I can chalk almost anything up to the power of suggestion, and to the placebo effect. That doesn't mean that these things don't have value to some people, merely that it's very possible that they don't "work" the ways that people believe they do. > I have also observed some real inconsistencies in the "unbeliever" > outlook especially as it pertains to karma. In order to explain > karma and it's long term ramifications I see the "unbeliever" > introduce their own supernatural tenants. More later if anyone > is interested. I'm interested, because I have seen no such thing. Remember, karma is a *theory*, nothing more. There is not a shred of evidence that such a theory has any relationship to reality. I happen to believe that it does, but that's just a belief on my part. But I don't see that I have to believe in anything "supernatural" to support my belief, and I don't think I've seen anyone else suggest such a thing. So again you're going to have to be more specific. One thing that you are right about is that us Unbelievers don't tend to let people get away with vague, hazy Newagey language that doesn't really say anything. :-)
