--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Go figure. > > Me, I'm more of a "you have to have been there" kinda guy. I'm gonna see > the movie. :-) Me too. This is a fundamental spiritual policy: See the guy, do the practice (if it's a about practice), or go to the place. Form your own judgment. Btw. I followed you recommendation to see Cloud Atlas, and I really enjoyed it. Great film. <snip> > That's the same way I am these days with spiritual books. I tend to read > them only after I've already had the experience they're discussing, to > see how our impressions jibe, or don't. > > Go figure. > Yep. But what we observe here is, what I have understood to be a pattern of AVOIDANCE. People talk about teachers they have never met, they talk about practices they have never understood or done, they talk about enlightenment, without having experienced it, they talk about Maharishi without having ever seen him. Or when they saw him, they saw him very shortly, or only in a certain setting, of a lecture, or while attending a course, not really WORKING with the guy, never experiencing him when he meant business. They talk about the group effect, but don't participate, they talk about the movement without knowing it. They defend the ludicrously high course fee, and not take the fertilizers because they don't have the money, etc. In short, they don't walk the talk. How could we take them seriously? I observed this with a friend once. He had a certain difficulty with discipline. But then he talked about keeping discipline, and how good it was, just he didn't act on it. I realized then, that his talk was a means to avoid it. Talk, words, the ideas where a SUBSTITUTE for the real thing the words represented. Give me somebody to adore, so that I can keep him at a save distance. Something along the lines: dead gurus can't kick ass.
