--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not my mission here to defend Maharishi. I had similar > thoughts when I came across the Papaji teachings. I thought: > 'Why wasn't I told this right away?' But behind this question > is another one: Why did I waste time? Why couldn't I have > *achieved* it before? And now you see how you lead your own > argument ad absurdum, in calling this teaching (MMY's) > *unproductive*. It implies, that you still believe, somewhere > deep down, that enligtenment is produced by a set of teachings > and instructions, and that you just have to give somebody the > right set of instructions, and viola, he will achieve.
You're wrong about this. I actually don't believe that realization can be caused by a particular set of teachings. But I do believe it can definitely be *prevented* to some extent by a certain set of teachings. The longer one clings to an unproductive teaching, the longer they are not open to another way of seeing things that would not cause, but *allow*, their own realization. <snip> > Now, if this tactics is terribly productive, I don't know, I > just know that this particular body/mind organism called > Maharishi was drawn to it, that is that the supreme Brahman > wanted him to do so... Here we lost the ability to have a meaningful discussion. The moment you postulate some sentient entity that you call 'supreme Brahman' and suggest that it has desires (wants) of its own, I lose interest. :-) > ...and that I > in turn, at that time was drawn to this particular body-mind named > Maharshi, which equally was just corresponding to my level of > consciousness and understanding at that time. So, you see, I see > this in a fairly imporsonal way, but this is of course my > perspective now. Whatever floats your boat. > Now just one more point of Maharishis teachings, as far as I > remember them: He clearly stated that there is different > knowledge for different states of consciousness, and that > the knowledge of one state would be a lie at the next level > (that it had to be forgotten at that level). I don't know > why other people didn't here all this, maybe they were just >not terribly interested in such teachings at the time. I think that most students were eager for 'pat answers' and settled for them. They were aided in this by the fact that Maharishi, unlike many teachers I've met, did *not* go out of his way when he presented a set of teachings, to follow them up with something like, "Of course, all of this is bullshit except when seen from one limited point of view." He'd imply that each limited set of teachings was true, and the students would glom onto it as universally true. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
