|
|
Post by grumpyfreyr on Oct 28, 2020 4:25:30 GMT -5
no glaring errors, seems to be making sense. Only listed teacher I'm familiar with is ranked pretty much as I'd rank him.
I have a different approach to ranking teachers. I don't pretend to know whether others are enlightened - for all I know, everyone else is enlightened and just here to help me on my journey. So I can only say "I recognise this person's attainment" or "I don't recognise this person's attainment". It is then more a report of where I'm at.
In addition to that, there's the consideration of what stage they are at. A teacher at an earlier stage is not "worse" than a teacher at a later stage. Everyone is playing their part perfectly. And of course, I can't recognise stages far beyond my own. The fully enlightened are almost certainly invisible to me.
To rank other teachers is to reveal the impurities in one's own mind. I'm not saying that isn't a helpful thing to do. But it is itself a teaching. The teacher always reveals his own ego. In writing this, I reveal my own.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 29, 2020 12:36:29 GMT -5
no glaring errors, seems to be making sense. Only listed teacher I'm familiar with is ranked pretty much as I'd rank him. I have a different approach to ranking teachers. I don't pretend to know whether others are enlightened - for all I know, everyone else is enlightened and just here to help me on my journey. So I can only say "I recognise this person's attainment" or "I don't recognise this person's attainment". It is then more a report of where I'm at. In addition to that, there's the consideration of what stage they are at. A teacher at an earlier stage is not "worse" than a teacher at a later stage. Everyone is playing their part perfectly. And of course, I can't recognise stages far beyond my own. The fully enlightened are almost certainly invisible to me. To rank other teachers is to reveal the impurities in one's own mind. I'm not saying that isn't a helpful thing to do. But it is itself a teaching. The teacher always reveals his own ego. In writing this, I reveal my own. Correct. |
|
|
|
Post by grumpyfreyr on Oct 29, 2020 13:17:42 GMT -5
I don't recognise your attainment. I infer from this that you are either too far ahead, or too far behind to recognise mine. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 29, 2020 13:31:22 GMT -5
I don't recognise your attainment. I infer from this that you are either too far ahead, or too far behind to recognise mine. I would say the higher can know the lower but the lower cannot know the higher. IOW, we can't see above our own level (of being). And a lot of people, in general, consider there isn't a higher level than their own. |
|
|
|
Post by grumpyfreyr on Oct 29, 2020 14:20:18 GMT -5
we can't see above our own level (of being). Not seeing above our own level, means we can never be sure what we are looking at. A higher level may present as a lower level. I have seen this even in my own short journey. As my own investment in 'looking spiritual' is relinquished, I become invisible to those in stages I remember well, happily appearing quite egotistical to them.
One of two ways in which people avoid learning - the other way being to consider higher levels inaccessible to them.
The worldling (not even partially enlightened) must employ one of these defences to stay unenlightened. |
|
|
|
Post by grumpyfreyr on Oct 29, 2020 14:48:27 GMT -5
I feel confident in saying that I am not beyond 6. More than that I cannot say. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 29, 2020 15:13:12 GMT -5
I don't recognise your attainment. I infer from this that you are either too far ahead, or too far behind to recognise mine. I would say the higher can know the lower but the lower cannot know the higher. IOW, we can't see above our own level (of being). And a lot of people, in general, consider there isn't a higher level than their own. 's a good point that should give pause to everybody: there are things you don't understand, no matter how much you believe you do. |
|
|
|
Post by grumpyfreyr on Oct 29, 2020 15:31:32 GMT -5
a good point that should give pause to everybody: there are things you don't understand, no matter how much you believe you do. I don't recognise your attainment. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 29, 2020 16:19:08 GMT -5
a good point that should give pause to everybody: there are things you don't understand, no matter how much you believe you do. I don't recognise your attainment. Don't feel bad. |
|
|
|
Post by grumpyfreyr on Oct 29, 2020 16:23:37 GMT -5
I don't recognise your attainment. Don't feel bad. Now I think you a moron. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 29, 2020 17:20:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by grumpyfreyr on Oct 29, 2020 19:56:47 GMT -5
You're ridiculous. ![]() Is that so? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 30, 2020 3:16:56 GMT -5
I don't recognise your attainment. I infer from this that you are either too far ahead, or too far behind to recognise mine. This reminds me of a Richard Rose concept of "ladders". The guy who owns this forum was a student of Richard's. Many years ago. As I recall, Richard applied it to the practicality of people relating to one another, in that only someone higher up but not too far away can help you on it. My exposure to this has been casual, and 2nd hand. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 30, 2020 3:29:07 GMT -5
I don't recognise your attainment. I infer from this that you are either too far ahead, or too far behind to recognise mine. I would say the higher can know the lower but the lower cannot know the higher. IOW, we can't see above our own level (of being). And a lot of people, in general, consider there isn't a higher level than their own. But there's a difference between having a deeper understanding and being able to relate that to someone who doesn't. Also, the entire notion of hierarchy, in existential terms, is always worth questioning. If someone does genuinely have that deeper understanding, but is unable to reach and gain the attention of another who doesn't, then that part, that trigger or lever within the aspirant, is, in this sense, entirely invisible to the "higher" one. This isn't to dismiss hierarchy outright, or to deny the relative meaning expressed by their expression, but it reminds me of a Zen koan, and the Zen notion of: "beginner's mind". |
|
|
|
Post by grumpyfreyr on Oct 30, 2020 5:03:33 GMT -5
If someone does genuinely have that deeper understanding, but is unable to reach and gain the attention of another who doesn't That doesn't quite reflect my experience. It's not about ability. Not exactly.
If you realise that violence isn't helpful, and stop using weapons of any kind, would you say you are unable to fight? One can know the roads of conflict well and choose not to use them.
Gaining the attention of someone might be seen as helpful for teaching purposes at one stage, but at a later stage seen to serve no purpose but delay (gaining the attention of the unenlightened is something to avoid if at all possible).
For every gateless gate, the way back is not technically impossible, but seen to be insane. No one returns to a way they see the insanity of. |
|
