This post reminded me of a pet peeve of mine regarding those who make their living leading others spiritually for better or worse. The pet peeve is the teachers' adopted names. There probably isn't a definitive line in the sand for this, but I think it is WAAAY overused. For example, a woman's birth name is Catherine Schwartz, but once she begins her teaching, she decides she is Grace Beyondananda. Or David Finkelstein becomes Krishna Ram. Happens with seekers too. I can see it as some sort of inspiration going forward, but given that Awakening results in the world returning to what it IS, what is wrong with honoring our families and those who brought us into the world? Anyway, big turnoff for me, and incidentally a wonderful source of humor at their expense.:-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > One of the trends I have noticed spiritual-marketplace-wide, *not* just in > the TM movement, is the tendency of students of a teacher widely considered > to be enlightened to make excuses for the actions of that teacher. These > excuses often boggle the imagination, but almost always devolve into, "The > ways of the enlightened are mysterious. We cannot examine them using the same > guidelines we use for lesser people, because they function at a higher level > of reality than we do. Their state of consciousness is such that we have to > put them in a special category, and cut them breaks we would never cut to > anyone else." > > I don't buy this. After 45+ years on a quasi-spiritual path, I'm of the > opinion that we should hold the enlightened to not only the same standards as > anyone else, but to higher standards. They, after all, are the ones making > their livings by selling us a vision of a higher way of life. They should > walk their talk. > > But it's amazing to me how many of the seekers I run into, grazing > side-by-side at the spiritual smorgasbord, believe that the enlightened > deserve special consideration, just because they are enlightened. When I run > into such people, I often have conversations with them that can be > concatenated into the pastiche of those conversations below: > > Me: "So how do you know that Guru X was enlightened? > TB: "He fits the definition of enlightenment that I have learned." > Me: "Who gave you that definition?" > TB: "He did." > Me: "How do you know that the definition is true?" > TB: "Because he told it to me." > Me: "How do you know that he was telling the truth?" > TB: "Because the enlightened can only tell the truth." > Me: "And you know that how?" > TB: "Because it's part of the definition of enlightenment." > Me: "The definition you were given by Guru X?" > TB: "Exactly." > Me: "Who you consider enlightened because in your opinion he fits the > definition he gave you?" > TB: "Exactly. And your point is?" > Me: "Nothing. Nice talking with you." > > My point, if I have one, is that many seekers tend to assess their teacher's > enlightenment or lack thereof *using the very definitions of enlightenment > given to them by that teacher*. > > Somewhat perversely and circularly, they assume that the definition of > enlightenment is true because the teacher who gave it to them is enlightened. > So since the definition is true, and the enlightened really CAN do no wrong, > the enlightened thus are "off the map" when assessing right and wrong. If > someone suggests that our teacher -- who we *know* was enlightened -- ever > did anything that could be considered wrong, they're only looking at things > from the POV of ignorance. If they looked at it correctly -- the way we do -- > they'd see that Guru X had only the children's spiritual welfare in mind when > he diddled them in that ashram in India, or in Texas, or wherever it was, and > his actions were not only right action but holy action. All of those > children's evolutionary tracks have been inestimably enhanced as a result of > Guru X fondling their genitals and convincing them to suck his cock. It's > just one of the mysteries of enlightenment. > > Think I'm indulging in hyperbole? I've seen the above argument expressed > seriously on the Internet. That's how far this tendency to want to give the > enlightened a Get Out Of Jail Free Card can go. > > Actions that, if performed by their neighbors, would cause most people to tar > and feather them and run them out of town, are somehow deemed not only > permissible but life-enhancing when performed by someone they consider > enlightened. I just don't get it. What makes these people so "special" that > they deserve special treatment? Someone who believes this, please explain it > to me. >
