|
|
Post by Magnus on Apr 17, 2009 1:32:27 GMT -5
Well I see a lot of focus in here on "fake" masters, and I agree that enlightenment shouldnt be about profit and rubbish.
I would like to share two masters who I find to be amzingly compassionat and loving beings.
You can find them on youtube. their names are Mooji and Papaji.
Papaji is now died in 1997, and he was the master of Mooji.
Papaji also said something very wonderfull:
"a true master does not give you anything to do"
Check them out, and if you dont like them, then dont waist your time. Check out the deep words from Nisargadatta Mahraj and Ramana Maharshi..
I wish you all good luck in finding that you are That - and that you always have been That:)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Uncreated on Apr 28, 2009 16:34:54 GMT -5
So long as your benchmark for what mastery consists of isn't limited to compassion and lovingness, you should measure a master in a holistic manner, taking into account his entire range of expression -- positive or negative -- and how it works in combination with the essence of his or her teachings.
Simple compassion is no closer a guarantee of mastery than, say, spite or anger. The void is completely fluid. Anyone regardless of temperament or demeanor could potentially be a master. Don't limit yourself to what we would deem "good", "pleasing" or "desirable" traits. The most treacherous, genocidal dictator may be as enlightened as the do-no-wrong sage.
-
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Apr 30, 2009 13:59:08 GMT -5
What a wonderfully profound statement! Brilliantly said! Especially the part in bold. " you should measure a master in a holistic manner, taking into account his entire range of expression -- positive or negative -- and how it works in combination with the essence of his or her teachings." you should measure a master in a holistic manner, taking into account his entire range of expression -- positive or negative -- and how it works in combination with the essence of his or her teachings.
Simple compassion is no closer a guarantee of mastery than, say, spite or anger. The void is completely fluid. Anyone regardless of temperament or demeanor could potentially be a master. Don't limit yourself to what we would deem "good", "pleasing" or "desirable" traits. The most treacherous, genocidal dictator may be as enlightened as the do-no-wrong sage. - |
|
|
|
Post by valleyvintner on Oct 21, 2009 17:48:50 GMT -5
I have to dissent from Lightmystic's glowing admiration of the Uncreated's post about "measuring" masters. It's a mistake to confuse mere conceptual mechanics with genuine insight.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Oct 23, 2009 10:19:14 GMT -5
Would you care to explain? That may be the vaguest statement I have ever heard..... I have to dissent from Lightmystic's glowing admiration of the Uncreated's post about "measuring" masters. It's a mistake to confuse mere conceptual mechanics with genuine insight. |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Oct 27, 2009 14:25:54 GMT -5
i see that there are a great many masters that need to be discarded so that the journey may continue. it is easy to focus on the teacher and not the path. i think of it as shining the flashlight in your own eyes and wondering why you cannot see.
|
|
|
|
Post by pshapiro on Oct 27, 2009 14:39:29 GMT -5
One thing to know is that a master who makes you blind when you look at his teachings is not opening your eyes through his teaching and he just uses the light. Just showing light is insufficient for teaching human beings where the light came from, how to make light, why should we want light, how can light be useful for our lives, .... Afterall when we look at a shining lightbulb we can't even see the lightbulb very well but when we look at the true Enlightened master we see ourselves reflected by him. A good question we need in order to check a master's teaching is 'What can we see and know through his teaching ?'
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 27, 2009 17:09:04 GMT -5
Paul: Like Lightmystic, I did not understand what you were trying to say when you said "It's a mistake to confuse mere conceptual mechanics with genuine insight." Can you clarify that?
In my mind, a good teacher is always pointing to the truth and cutting the ground out from under any intellectual understanding a student tries to stand on. A good teacher is slippery and does not allow herself to be categorized. She holds up a mirror to the student and constantly puts the student into a "not-knowing" state of mind. She manifests freedom from convention and needs nothing from the student or anybody else. She relies upon intuition and does whatever she thinks will keep the student moving toward reality and away from ideation. She may or may not seem kind or loving, but she is always challenging the student to become aware of what is, and to discover what what is is (ie. his/her true self). LOL.
Hmmmmmmm..........I'm too tired for anymore of this despite how much fun it is. I'm going home to put some fish on the grille. Take care. More later. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Oct 28, 2009 4:47:06 GMT -5
Zendancer: While the lesser spotted Booyah can be shown to be genetically identical to the common or garden Karen, The Paul Shapiro should not be mistaken for the (rarely sighted) ValleyVinter. They are quite a different species altogether.
When Paul says "the true Enlightened master" he has someone (and only one someone) specific in mind. ValleyVinter on the other hand, plucks his grapes from more than one vine...
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 28, 2009 7:29:18 GMT -5
Peter: Ahhhh, thanks for the clarification. I got confused about which creature I was responding to. Knowing that there is only one True Enlightened Master eliminates the other question I was going to ask. ZD
|
|
