-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
ME: What he said. Nice post. Also shout out to Steve for opening up the conversation. Much appreciated. > > --- 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. :-) >
