--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <sidha7001@> wrote: > > > > My experience, which may be quite different than others, with > > regard to questons, answers, and transparency in TM is- > > > > 1. Not much of direct answers to quesitions > > > > 2. Not much transparency, but rather confidentiality. > > > > The next experience is I felt this is how it is on the spiritual > > path. Now, since I am experiencing this is not the case, I enjoy > > it more. Could be many reasons why circular answers and lack of > > transparency. > > > > For example, > > Q. - Has enlightenment been reached? > > A. - Long, circular, and non comprehendable- > > > > Possible reasons why? Enlightenment wasn't reached > > > > Over here, this is how the Q and A goes > > > > Q. - Has enlightenment been reached > > A. - Yes > > > > I never thought such simplicity was possible. This is why there > > is no confusion with the sadakas. > > While I agree with you about some of the "answers" > one receives from some spiritual teachers, I should > point out that the situation you describe opens > other another question: > > Q. - The answer you received may have been less > confusing, but was it true? > > Someone says, "Yes." Cool. > > But what if the person giving you this answer is > trying to mislead people, for his or her own financial > gain, trying to get them to "sign on" as his/her students > and contribute to his/her bank account? > > What if the person giving you this answer firmly believes > that he/she is enlightened, but is mistaken? > > See where I'm going with this? > > "Less confusing" is good, if what you want out of life > is simple answers to simple questions. But with regard > to enlightenment, are things really that simple? The > tales of spiritual practice are *full* of stories, both > old and modern, of teachers misleading their students, > and of teachers misleading *themselves*, and assuming > that they had realized their full enlightenment when > they had only glimpsed a tiny part of it. What if the > person who believes he or she is enlightened is right > about it at the moment, but after a few weeks or months > or years the enlightenment "fades" and is no longer > present? That's happened to dozens of people I know, > some of whom set themselves up in business *as* > enlightened spiritual teachers while the experience > was still present, and now have to cope with it *not* > being present. > > So we're back to the first question I ever asked you, > Ron. What are the criteria that you use when someone > tells you that they're enlightened, and you choose to > *believe* them? > > *Other than* the desire for a simple answer to a simple > question, and the desire to be "less confused," what is > it that makes you assume that the person who just gave > you the simple answer gave you a *truthful* answer? > > I think if you ponder this you'll come back with "faith." > > Which, in my book, can be a noble and wonderful thing, > but can *also* be just one more way to be confused. >
I think you are right about the faith part so the entire response is my own faith system beyond my experience. And even at that, I ask you about your own confirmed experience- how sure are you about it- who are you? how sure are you about that answer? Therefore, it just seems to be total faith. For example - who am I? am I this body? if an arm is chopped off, now what? So, each has their own criteria, but then unless one knows from direct experience what Being is, then there is going to have to be a leap of faith, and if one does know Being- why would they look for a Guru? I accept in faith what my Guru says, I dont see any other way this is possible- this is being straight forward about it. Not being straight forward, IMO, is what MMY calls it- someone was saying I believe in you, he stopped them and said recognition- that is not straight as this simply is not what is, so then the disciple is misled, in confusion. So, my own criteria for a Guru- what happened when you met them in person? what happened when you followed their instructions? what do the disciples say? How simple, direct, truthful is what the Guru is saying, actually so? Is there any effect or transmission in being around the Guru, speaking to the Guru in person or or on the phone, or with letters, emails? My criteria doesn't include the personality, as I don't believe this would be telling. If the obvious bad stuff you mentioned is there, I don't think I will miss it, can't speak for others. You can make a longer list or shorter, and when you feel the criteria is met, then it looks like it is going to be a leap of faith. It is a matter of one using their own discretion, and this is going to be different for each one. Yes, it does appear there is a lot of people claiming enlightenment, speaking about it yet giving the impression they are speaking from it, Guru's taking your money, out for sex, etc- many of the things you said. So, it is up to each one to use their own discretion, using their own belief system, and this may result in one deciding that no Guru is the best way to proceed. IN any case, I am clearly stating here that you are hearing my own belief system, IMO, many have a stpry book concept of what they think enlightenment or an enlightened guru is like. Maybe they think of Mahatma Ghandi, Chrit, or look at GuruDev, then convert an imagination of what the enlightened are into fact.Criterias are so vastly different- some are subconscious- their not Indian?- no way, They are not Psychic- no way, no famous with a million followers, no way, etc Here is a post today which is quite related to this topic: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "n0by" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Namaste and Great week ahead!

Om Namo Narayana http://www.n0by.de/n0/myLife/07/0730/

 G i see you are being as usual creative. - 

Guru is not a bad thing within itself - it means weighty (with knowledge) 
and also Bringer of Light (dispelling darkness) 

i think what happens is that people sometimes when they have had a 
bad experience wrap up all the bad experiences with dogmas and perhaps
personality worship etc. and then transfer this onto the word Guru. 
It is not the word that is the problem - it is perhaps only the past experience 
which tinges it with meanings that may have nothing to do with one that 
 upholds the integrity of that word and all that comes with it. Being a Guru 
does not necessarily mean one is spewing a lot of dogmatic rhetoric or 
false seeking of fawning attentions or power trips. There may just be a few 
genuine Guru's on the planet - so try not to throw out the baby with the 
bathwater. This is a saying that means keep what is of value and throw out 
the rest - what is the value in seeing that the water is dirty and then throwing
out everything thereby losing that which precious? That is not wisdom but 
rather being in a mental spin of seeing with blinders and lumping everything 
into one catagory like taking diamonds and cubics and throwing out the lot 
because on the surface they appear to be the same thing. 

Take a deeper look and separate that which has value from that which does 
not and then be willing to open and embrace that which is Honest - has 
 Integrity and is Truth. 

> n0by

Maha Shanti OM 
0
