Well, speaking of D, I have always found his comments, discourses, blog, to be very genuine. Even if I can't really follow the intricacies.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: Steve, your comment about indulging eventually becoming a lot reminds me of something D passed on from his teacher: that maintaining sattva in Brahmin is crucial. It sounds like that teacher leads a sattvic if somewhat reclusive life. He is also talking about 3 stages of Brahman: basic, refined and wholeness or holiness. And 2 possible GCs: impersonal and personal. Westerners tend towards the former according to him. Maharishi explained that knowledge can lead to better experiences the next time. I'd say it's key to have reliable knowledge and or just go with what resonates with one's own experience. On Friday, January 24, 2014 9:23 PM, "steve.sundur@..." <steve.sundur@...> wrote: Well, I say this for Michael's benefit mostly, and I've mentioned this before. I read the transcripts of two interviews with Fred Lenz, aka Rama, and I was most impressed with them. And that's a capital M. I believe the second interview was sometime into the whole affair, and my perception was - in the first interview, the silver was polished with a high sheen. In the second interview, it was still silver, but had just gotten a little tarnished. On the other hand, Ithink you see that a lot in spiritual teachers. They work hard to get to a certain level of spiritual development, and gain a level of freedom that comes with it, and then decide, "why not" (indulge a little). And then maybe a little becomes a lot. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Nice little rap. It is something I notice on the Batgap chat site. There are > some "correspondents" (as Richard would say), who really nail that jargon. I > have to say it always sounds good, but I ask myself, "could it not be said > more simply?" There is basically no state of consciousness or experience they > haven't had. If suddenly a hidden lecture of Maharishi's surfaced about, say, > "Brahman-in Loka 7", they would have been there, and could speak > authoritatively about it. For all I know, maybe they are living those > realities! But I find after only a few sentences, I get pretty bored. I know how you feel. Especially the "new knowledge" suddenly, overnight being the everyday reality of the people who've just heard it the day before thang. If Maharishi had suddenly announced DC (Dweezil Consciousness, y'know...higher than all the rest) they'd immediately be able to discourse knowingly about DC and what it's like to "be there." Just for the edification of us rubes who (sadly) aren't "there" yet, of course. :-) > You get that same thing with David Spero, (sorry no link, kind of rushing > this morning). I know he has a Batgap interview, (which I haven't seen), but > every so often I check into his website to see a few minutes of his talks. Don't know him. I've certainly seen the same thing in many orgs, both in the teachers and in their students. It's more forgivable IMO in the students. > On the other hand, there's much I don't know about the upper echelons of > spirituality, that maybe they all have "arrived" as they seem to indicate. And maybe the self they no longer have just wants to be appreciated for Having Arrived at selflessness. :-) > The most spiritual thing I've seen in the last couple years was the video > Ann posted about Ann _______ who can dial into the thinking and feeling of > animals. If I have any spiritual tingling in my life, it would be along > those lines. I do feel an affinity with the animal world, including insects, > but nothing like she has. I'd be like comparing a kindergartner to a college > grad. I haven't seen it, and haven't had very many experiences of that sort myself. The most powerful ones were with birds of prey. They just "lock eyes" with you and won't look away, and if you hold that gaze you (or at least I) can convince yourself that you're getting a hit on what they're thinking, and how they think. I've seen a weird thing around the Rama guy that I have no explanation for. To me it feels a lot like how he described it -- "transmission." What would happen was that we'd be late into a center meeting or out in the desert in the wee hours of the night, after literally hours of meditation and talks, and he'd just say "Watch." Then he'd either meditate, or dance around, or whatever, with no "setup." Often there would be no subsequent "explanation," only a passing "That was a new teaching." Afterwards, as I walked around and overheard students talking amongst themselves on the break of after the gathering, I'd lurk and listen to what they were saying. Often -- and often to my surprise -- they were describing the same experiences I would have. And using the same language. It was (subjectively) as if "packets of data" had been "downloaded" to each of us, silently. It was just the damnedest thing, and as I say I can't explain how it happened, only that it did, with some frequency. > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: > > Michael's story about a Death Watch, Southern-Style really inspired me this > morning. It "reached me." It got me interested in the characters and the > scenario and how things were gonna turn out...even though that was a little > telegraphed by the title. :-) > > Being me, I started thinking about this in terms of some recent posts that > have discussed the writing of stories about spiritual experience. Some of the > tales of power I've read from seekers on many paths "reached me," and some > didn't. In some cases there was too much "Look at me" in the tales I didn't > like, too much attention-seeking on the part of the storyteller, and that -- > for me -- is a bit of a turnoff. But more often in the tales I didn't like, > the issue was language, and in particular the overuse of spiritual jargon. > > Jargon has its uses. If you're dealing with a concept that really doesn't > much exist for most of the people in your audience, it's fine IMO to give it > a name. The first time a spiritual teacher does this, he or she also gives a > talk about what that name or term *means*. If it's a term that comes up in > his or her teaching often, over time the students no longer need the > explanations or definitions every time they hear the term. They hear "karma" > and *don't* hear in their heads "Huh?" They begin to hear "karma" and > immediately associate the term with everything they've been told about it by > their teacher. Nothing wrong with this so far, IMO. > > It's when the students go out and try to talk to non-students that the issue > of Jargon As A Second Language comes up. If these same students try to give a > lecture or write a story that is peppered with the jargon they've come to be > so familiar with that they don't even *notice* when they're using it, then > they often "lose their audience." If every other word is "karma" this, or > "dosa" that, or "purusha somethingorother," all interjected with no > definitions of the terms, IMO the storyteller is *limiting* his audience. And > in most cases, "losing them." They've been *excluded*, because they don't > know the jargon the writer is using. > > Michael's tale wasn't exclusionary; it was inclusive. He used ordinary > language, the way he heard it spoken around him at the time, and he used it > well to weave a story that said "Ya'll come on in, now. Sit yerselves down > while I make us some icetea." > > One of the things I'm most grateful to the Fred Lenz - Rama guy for is for > his command of the English language and how to use it. He taught that skill > explicitly in his talks to his students, and he demonstrated it in his own > public talks. Some of Rama's students liked the talks he'd give where he got > into really esoteric or occult shit, subjects that really did require some > jargon and were obviously "only for my students." I liked his "intro > lectures." > > The esoteric talks, given to students who all knew Jargon As A Second > Language, were great because he could skip the definitions and use just the > jargon as "shorthand," and as a time-saver. He could get into some really, > really interesting subjects in these "just for students" talks. But it was > the "intro lectures" that were High Art. > > There, he'd get into the *same* interesting subjects, only this time using > metaphors like going to the movies and going to work and stuff like that, > things that people knew and identified with. His "intros" were in almost all > cases jargon-free, and that's what's so interesting in retrospect. He didn't > *need* the jargon to discuss these same interesting subjects -- he found a > way to do it *without jargon*, and in language that actually "reached" the > people he was talking to. > > There are legitimate uses for spiritual jargon. But if you use them in your > writing, you're limiting your audience. I guess that's all I'm saying. By > relying on jargon that they don't explain, some writers are IMO being more > than a little elitist in their approach. They are expecting their audience to > know all these jargon words and buzzphrases, and respecting them so little > that they don't even bother to translate them back into English as they go. > > I think that's rude. When I encounter seekers and teachers from spiritual > traditions I haven't encountered before and they start talking in non-stop > jargon, I have a little trick that I sometimes do. After a particularly long > jargonfest, I stop them and ask them politely, "Could you repeat that in > English, without using any jargon or buzzwords this time?" > > You'd be amazed at how many actually CAN'T. Some actually get angry, and > accuse me of asking them to (a literal quote I've heard several times) "Speak > down to the level of my audience." What made them think they were "above" > them in the first place? > > If you're talkin' neuroscience to a bunch of neuroscientists, you can get > away with using a lot of neuroscience jargon. No one in the audience feels > "left out," because they understand it all. But if you talk to the same > audience and start peppering your talk with, say, Jyotish jargon buzzwords > that they don't understand, they're going to start fidgeting in their seats > and looking at you like you're crazy. That's what being in the listening or > reading audience of a person using too much jargon *feels* like. The speaker > or writer has *excluded* them. > > If you're a neuroscientist purposefully trying to communicate to *only* > neuroscientists, that exclusion is cool. But if you're a writer or speaker > trying to convey some spiritual experience to your audience, theoretically to > inspire them, is excluding a certain percentage of them really what you want > to do? >
