On 2008-Dec-18, at 09:27, Jared Earle wrote: > On 18 Dec 2008, at 09:01, Stefano Mori wrote: >> And this is another issue that leads people to get upset with >> enlightenment teachers > > > I will tell you why I have a problem with Enlightenment teachers. I've > met quite a few of them and every man jack of them was a fraud. > > There is no enlightenment teacher in the UK who has anything but his > own best interests at heart. The step from Guru to Head of Dangerous > Cult is one merely of scale. > > When you explain to me why you've decided against Scientology as a > path to enlightenment, I'll use that same argument to explain why I > think the rest are all charlatans.
It is treacherous indeed. The problem is that the teacher (of anything) is teaching you about something which you don't already know. But you have to evaluate whether what they are teaching you is worthwhile, even whilst you don't know about it. My basic approach is be open minded and very skeptical. Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 190: Hear all, trust nothing. So my starting point is, gee, people talk about an experience called enlightenment--I don't know about it so I want to be open minded about it, but I also know that it may be 100% made up, or even quite real but worthless. Why have I decided against Scientology? Very poor cross referencing for one. Have you ever heard a Scientologist praise other spiritual traditions? Cite works outside of Scientology? That's not a perfect rule by any means--not every culture has world travel as a priority. Second, intuition. What do its proponents look like? What feeling do I get watching them? What is their emotional tone? How do they speak? Now I don't know what my intuition is picking up on, but we have intuition and we can see patterns and pictures, even if we don't know what the picture is made of. Everyone can recognise a face but few people can draw the parts to make a likeness. That's intuition, that's just seeing the whole picture and getting some sort of impression. There is a psychology test you can take (expensive at it is hand interpreted) where they analyse the structure of your sentences to match you to 5 stages of cognitive thought. For all I know, and all you know, you're hearing the structure of people's discussions and you're getting an intuitive grasp of whether that person is likely to be into abusive cults, or whether they are rational and questioning. The impression I get may be wrong, but for what it is worth, use it. Scientology fails my intuition test, badly. Third, cross reference back to the thing. What do other people say about it? And what do other people say about those people in turn? For example, I've heard what Ken Wilber has said about Genpo Roshi. I've seen Genpo myself and done some of his stuff. I know other people who've studied with him a long time. I also have read what Wilber says about Aurobindo. I've read Aurobindo myself. I've read what senior students of Aurobindo have said about Cohen. I've heard what Genpo has said about Cohen. My wife has seen Cohen and Genpo and I've heard what her intuition says about each of them. And I've seen and chatted to a number of his students over a few months. And it all adds up to, Cohen has some serious problems. And at the end of the day, there is another issue: the teacher may be a good one, and the methods pretty sound, but is it right for me? Is it something that I actually need and would be good for me? The best thing I read about psychotherapy (another mine field) was a piece by Robert Kegan. He said that when people at stage 4 (his cognitive model) go to therapy, they come out "knowing" why they are screwed up, and it becomes fixed in their minds that they are and will continue to be depressed because of their parents, or abuse, or whatever. In other words, the therapy failed. It actually made things worse. But a person at stage 5 is cognitively able to rewrite their own story, so now the therapist is just someone who helps them uncover some unquestioned assumptions, then drop the bad ones, keep the good ones, and invent some new motivations that are healthy and useful. People at 4 can't do that. People at 5 can. The conclusion I take from that is people at 4 shouldn't do therapy. It makes them more ill. Lastly, nobody is perfect. Even Buddha grew old, sick, and died. You can find fault with every single person everywhere. A multitude of faults. Every person is a complete shmuck. That's what we are. But even though the doctor may be a womanising alcoholic who doesn't give a shit about his kids, for my purposes, all I'm interested in is whether he can help me with my illness. If he can, that's fine that's all I need. Stefano _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
