--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bhakti is that thing that t3rinity thinks that Michael > Dean Goodman practices, I don't know how often I should tell it to you: I am not talking about Bhakti practise, but about the Bhakti sentiment, which IMO plays a great role in any spiritual path, at least any Indian based. > and that he blasted Irmeli for > attacking when she criticized MDG's logic. Neither. I critized her for the way she characterized his 'idealizations' and called it egoism. For me it is natural that a devotee will revere his Guru, and its not a sign of his egoism, but of his devotion. This is basically what I said. I wrote it right there, you can go back and read it. But I think, what really made her mad on me was my implication, that she don't recognize this sentiment, because she doesn't have in in herself. Her spiritual development may be on different lines at the moment, thats okay. But I believe spiritual deveöopemnt is incomplete without this sentiment of Love and a developed heart. Whatever reverence MDG has for his Guru is a natural expression of his heart. That doesn't of course mean that all his arguments a correct, and that I agree with him totally. Simply I appreciate this elememt of reverence for his teacher, while you don't. IOW you mock at it as egoistic. There is of course nothing wrong with disagreeing with his arguments as such. But that I wasn't talking about. > The fact that, > AFAIK, neither MDG or Irmeli ever used the word 'bhakti' > and almost certainly didn't have bhakti in their minds > when they wrote what they wrote has nothing to do with it. Of course. But you can use other phrases like 'appreciation', 'devotion' etc. And of course they didn't use it, since this is my psychological characterization of his 'idealization'. Again, I reapeat, Irmeli called this idealization egoistic. I disagreed with that characterization and attributed it to a reverence, i.e. Bhakti to the teacher. Now, please note Barry, when I have said in the past, that I think, along with Ramana Maharshi and Ramakrishna, that Bhakti and Jnana are both completementary and will merge, this doesn't have to express itself as Guru bhakti of course. I really don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. Of course, there is a background. Ususally in our culture, which is based on the unfoldment of the ego, the value of submission, or devotion to an authorithy is looked down upon and ridiculled. That's what I obviously don't like. This is certainly a larger context which is worth discussing. E.G. in our society the value of the free expression of the individual ego is regarded higher that love and devotion to God, as can be seen in the caricature scandal. I just like to point out, that this is a case of cultural arrogance or dominance IMO. I don't think I am dysfunctional to think so. Well and if you think thats dysfunctional, then I am quite okay with it. I found it somewhat intriguing when Irmeli said that she knows two or three people who have Bhakti (Love for God). I was talking about her, and felt it was missing in her. So she indirectly admitted that I was right. > I think the equation is, if someone is challenging it, > it's probably bhakti. :-) > ------------------------ 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/
