Richard, many times turq has expressed, maybe in different words, this idea that followers actually enable leaders. At least once he has said that followers are even more responsible.
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 8:45 AM, Richard Williams <pundits...@gmail.com> wrote: Ann: > I guess my point here is that it takes enablers to allow certain individuals > to spiral out of control. When you put someone on some sort of pedestal > it can really screw them up, whether they are "holy men" or "holy women" > or the Justin Biebers and Miley Cyrus' of the world. Feed the ego like you > would force feed a goose to fatten up the liver and sooner or later you > create > something that is unwell. > This is a new twist - now it's Barry's fault for enabling Rama. Go figure. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:51 AM, <awoelfleba...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Michael wrote: > > >I feel the Universe has nearly infinite if not infinite experiences we can all >have, and the so-called higher states of awareness or enlightened perception, >including all the celestial perception stuff is just another experience among >a plethora of experiences. > > >I agree. I also have a hard time finding greater or lesser validity of any >particular experience over another. An experience experienced is just that - >it is reality for that experiencer. And as we all know experience is >ultimately subjective and particular to each person. How to understand or >interpret, let alone judge or put some value on someone else's >reality/experience is, for me, an exercise in futility. I do, however, believe >in personal growth and the reality of the possibility for the expansion of >awareness and the development of sensibility in different human beings in >different phases of their life or lives. > > >I think that if one chooses one can create an experience, a persona that is >real moral, always sativcc, always unperturbed, sort of like the historical >Buddha was supposed to have been. But most of those who have "higher states of >consciousness" cycle from those kinds of experiences into egoic focus that >includes often enough the idea that since everything is a play of awareness, >it doesn't make a tinker's damn what they do with and to people, cuz its just >all consciousness playing around. No rules, no standard of conduct, these are >the ones like Muktananda, Maharishi and Rama who go off the deep end of ego >and screw things up. > > > >I also think that many people who are under the assumption that a sort of >higher state of consciousness can or does exist in "gurus" or "teachers" and >are therefore responsible for giving these people free licence to do as they >please and to support them in this, often to the detriment of everyone >involved. I have yet to see anyone free of ego and I don't think of ego as >something terrible. Like many characteristics, it can become distorted, >unbalanced but in and of itself ego is neither good or bad. Just as ambition >or empathy or passion is not inherently, ultimately good or bad. How it >manifests can make the difference between something becoming positive, >negative or simply remaining benign. It's complex, of course. > > >I guess my point here is that it takes enablers to allow certain individuals >to spiral out of control. When you put someone on some sort of pedestal it can >really screw them up, whether they are "holy men" or "holy women" or the >Justin Biebers and Miley Cyrus' of the world. Feed the ego like you would >force feed a goose to fatten up the liver and sooner or later you create >something that is unwell. > >>
