Following up on my own post (rude, I know, but this subject fascinates me);
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This last statement is spurious enough just on its > own, but look at the *further* implication and > assumption in this amazing rant. > > It doesn't allow that there could possibly be TWO > saints, EACH with "total knowledge." > > This possibility is neither examined or presumed to > be exist. Clearly, in this person's mind, there can > only be ONE saint with "total knowledge." Therefore, > one must believe everything HE says. Anyone else > suggesting that they also have "total knowledge" is, > almost by definition, a liar or a fake. > > Think about what a belief like this structures on > the level of the believer's own consciousness. If > he really does believe that there can only be ONE > person with "total knowledge," and that position is > already held by Maharishi, HOW WILL HE EVER REALIZE > HIS OWN ENLIGHTENMENT? > > The guy has created a belief system for himself that, > in my estimation, is similar to dualistic Christian > beliefs. In that world view, one can NEVER *become* > what Christ was; one can only be his follower, forever. > The belief structures are not in place for becoming > like Christ or living one's life on the level that > Christ led his. > > In this particular True Believer rant, Kirkpatrick > seems to be suggesting a similar belief system among > the "real" TMers. He seems to assume that no one can > ever be what Maharishi is (to him), possessed of "total > knowledge." After all, if visiting saints can't > possibly have "total knowledge" because Maharishi's > got a monopoly on it, how can Maharishi's own > students ever attain "total knowledge?" > > The world view presented here is of the eternal follower, > who cannot conceive of ever being an equal to that which > he is following, only an obedient subordinate forever. > > It's sorta like believing that self discovery is like > the line from Highlander, "There can only be one." > > Self-defeating self-discovery. Weird. I wonder if there is a relationship between Shinzen Young's theory of 'poly-spiritual' and 'mono-spiritual' and seekers' assumptions about whether they will ever realize their own enlightenment. The distinction made by Young was: > I think > that some people are naturally poly-spiritual and some people > are mono-spiritual. Mono-spiritual people develop overt or subtle > conflicts if they go with different teachers of approaches, whereas > poly-spiritual people get an immediate sense of the complementary. > I've always been poly-spiritual. There's never been anything > I did with anybody that didn't seem immediately to complement > what I had done with everybody else. p 51 Does 'mono-spirituality,' with its core assumption that there is one and only one 'expert' when it comes to self discovery, imply a deep subconscious belief that one can never actually discover Self, only follow someone who has? Does it imply a belief that one can never really live life on the same level as the teacher one follows? Does 'poly-spirituality' imply more of a willingness to reach out and embrace the teachings of *many* who profess knowledge, and thus (by assuming that many *can* have such knowledge simultaneously) imply a subconscious core belief that the seeker himself can attain such knowledge? No answers here, only questions... ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
