--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/25/05 3:11 PM, "TurquoiseB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 8/25/05 12:50 PM, "gerbal88" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> A true spiritual master shows you how to be > >>> your own master. I don't see MMY/MCS EVER dabbling in this sort > >>> of counterproductive thinking! > >> > >> One thing is only obvious once one can gain some perspective > >> (e.g. after one has met a real master of meditation or yoga) or > >> simply has deep discrimination (between the real and the phony). > >> Once one has > >> met the former, it's immediately obvious what MMY represents. > > > > Just to be fair, someone should point out that what > > you're calling a "real" master may just be one that > > appeals to your sensibilities or predilection. > > But that is not what I am referring to. Consider for example > traditions which demand you train in the specific experiences > and learn them from someone who's 'been there, done that'. > There is verification all along the way--if you're a "master" > of something--there also should be a reason you are called that, > not merely because you grew a beard and put on a silk dhoti > and can rehash what the pundits feed you ;-).
Agreed. My main problem is with the use of the word "master." I try to NEVER use it, because of its dual meaning, and propensity for students to confuse one with the other. It's the same reason I try NEVER to refer to someone "attaining" enlightenment or "reaching" enlightenment, or "becoming" enlightened. It's an inaccurate and potentially misleading term. So, in my opinion, is "master." Ick. Never touch the stuff. :-) But you've got a point about being able to walk the walk. What I was poking fun at in my reply above is the assumption that you've met a "real" "master." As I pointed out to gerbal, hat's an assumption that is based on your Experience So Far, and your personal definition of "real" could change tomorrow. That's all. > If someone is a master they should have mastered the states > they speak of and be capable of leading others to that > experience, themselves being master of the various practices > which are used for differing students. Furthermore > they should possess the signs of such mastery. That's your opinion, which I respect, but don't neces- sarily agree with. I am unconvinced that *any* teacher inherently has the ability to lead others to permanent enlightenment. Lead them to experiences along the Way, many of them having the qualities of enlightenment, no problem. But permanent enlightenment is not something that anyone can be led to, IMO. They have to discover it themselves. Just a language nitpick, but it speaks to my own personal definition of a "real" teacher, if I had one. :-) Bottom line for me is that people tend to get the teachers their selves think they can handle. At the point where their selves get uncomfortable with the teacher, either because the self is diminshed and doesn't need that teacher any more or because the teacher is pushing the self's buttons and it is afraid of diminishing, people move on. No problem, either way. I don't believe that there exists a teacher that can go the whole Way with you, whoever you are. > In a valid, living tradition none of this should be ambiguous > or vague, but clear and present. Should? I thought we were dealing with real life. :-) > As a couple of us have mentioned on this list and a.m.t, > this often means having a guru mantra so you too can become > the guru. 'There should be no old students.' Should again. What ever happened to "different strokes for different folks?" And what about those seekers who are not in any way turned on by guru yoga, for whom it such a process is completely contrary to their predilection? "Should" they be forced to submit to a process that is not in line with what activates higher perceptions for them, or might they be happier with an "uncertified" teacher from a tradition that doesn't believe in "gurus?" These are just question, Vaj. You've been making declar- ations again, and I'm not challenging them, within the frame of reference that they exist in, merely pointing out that there are other frames of reference. ------------------------ 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/
