Good grief, Barry, CHANGE THE RECORD. Or if you can't say anything new, at least take a stab at addressing some of the self-contradictions and inconsistencies in the stock rants you repeat so relentlessly. Maybe attempting to resolve the conflicts will enable you to come up with something you haven't said before.
For example: --Here you are decrying attachment, but your endless reiteration of the same tired old criticisms of others and boasts about your own purported freedom from the behaviors you criticize is a blatant demonstration of *your* attachment to those criticisms and boasts, to your views of how people should behave and think and to your image of yourself as the exemplar of those views. --You criticize what you perceive as proselytizing, yet you yourself are constantly proselytizing for your own views, the *same* views, over and over and OVER again. --One of your other stock rants is against what you call "hierarchical thinking," the idea that *this* behavior or approach to spirituality is "better" than *that* one. Yet in this present rant and many others, you characterize people who behave the way you think they should as "spiritually mature" and those who don't as "spiritual adolescents." How is that not an example of the very "hierarchical thinking" you claim to deplore? --You say "beliefs are like clothes...Why get attached to yesterday's outfit, or last season's style?" But there's been no indication in your posts that *you* change *your* beliefs. Same old, same old, ever since I first encountered you on alt.m.t. These should get you started. Try examining *yourself* for a change instead of always putting others under the microscope. Not only would that be more interesting to the rest of us than your incessant and monotonous complaints about what you see, you might find it enhances your own spiritual growth to explore some new territory. That's 50 and out for me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > It seems to me, especially watching a few of the debates > of the last couple of weeks sail by, that the quality > that is most missing in most spiritual discussions is > non-attachment. > > Most such discussions -- *especially* when they descend > to the level of debate or argument -- seem to involve > either a need to "defend" what one currently believes, > or a need to denigrate or de-legitimize those who believe > something different. BOTH, to me, just scream the word > "attachment." Those who feel *either* the need to defend > what they believe or attempt to de-legitimize those who > believe something different strike me as personifying > pretty much the textbook definition of attachment. > > This surprises me to some extent because 1) I have met > spiritual seekers who display no such attachment to the > things they believe, and 2) I don't personally have a > heckuva lot of attachment to anything I believe. > > Some of the Tibetan Buddhist teachers I've been fortunate > enough to meet, and even a couple (but only a couple) of > Christians displayed IMO not one iota of attachment to > their beliefs. I've been with them when one or other of > their beliefs were revealed to be either non-truth or > only partial truth, and found their reactions inspiring. > They just shrugged and said, "Oh well...that turned out > to be yet another partial truth. No biggie. What's next?" > There was no trauma, no "hanging on" to the thing they > had previously believed, no attachment whatsoever. They > just accepted the new view of reality, discarded the old > one, and moved on. And they moved on *knowing* to some > extent that any future belief they might glom onto was > likely to be as fleeting as the one they'd just discarded, > and thus not something to become attached to. I consider > this 'tude to be "spiritual maturity." > > Among such people, I have noticed several corollary 'tudes. > One is an almost total lack of prosyletizing or attempts > to "sell" any particular view, or declare it "better" than > another. Points of view are presented AS points of view, > not as truth or Truth. Again, I find this an indication > of spiritual maturity, and its opposite an indication of > spiritual adolescence or attachment. > > Me, I've had my beliefs blown away by reality so many > times and in so many ways that I don't think I believe in > any particular point of view enough to become attached to > it. Much less to try to "debate" it or prove its "supremacy" > over other points of view. God, no God, schmod. Who cares? > It's not as if anyone actually "knows." They just believe, > based on their life experience and predilection. That > places all of them on an equal footing IMO. > > The need to "defend" what one believes, or attempt to > denigrate or de-legitimize anyone who believes differently > implies to me that the person doing it does NOT believe > that everyone is on an equal footing. Clearly, those who > do this feel that some people -- coincidentally the ones > who believe the same things he or she does -- are, in fact, > better or more "knowledgeable" than others. People who do > this tend, in fact, to "cite authority" in their attempts > TO defend and denigrate -- "My authority is better than > your authority," that sorta thing. > > I just don't see the point. What a waste of an incarnation. > Beliefs in my opinion are like clothes. You put them on > and wear them for a while, and then you take them off and > wear something else. Why get attached to yesterday's outfit, > or last season's style? >
