...REDRUM....

[commiejesus]

I want to put this debate to rest, we can say anything now but when under the gun we act and that is what's important. What do we do? Our desires and intentions are important yet secondary in this debate. I would like all to read my former teacher's essay on guru/disciple relationship and thus get a better picture where he was "coming from", when this statement originated.
www.ancientwisdomcentral.us/guru.html

Dec 6, 2008 14:29:18 GMT -5 fear said:

commiejesus, you're right about 3rd parties having no right to judge. In your previous post you said your teacher would kill for his guru. Isn't your teacher the third party judging his guru's killer.

Second it doesn't matter if the guru intervenes, the intent to muder with the belief that you are doing something positive is destructive. I can see that but I don't have to judge him for that. I could act in a positive way by maybe blocking my guru with my body and showing the attacker that I'm willing to die without stooping to his level.

Adyashanti said that Gandhi and Mother Teresa were so sucessful because the never went against anyone they were for something but not against anything.
Gandhi was for India but not against the British.
Mother Teresa was for the poor but was not against the rich.

[lightmystic]

Of course she had her issues like everyone else, but, at first glance, the book seems silly. So she accepted some illegal money to help the poor. Who knows if she even knew where it came from. Why do people care? People act like there's some objective morality about what is "right" and they somehow know this.

That's just so ridiculous to me.

Dec 6, 2008 17:21:15 GMT -5 Morrie said:

FEAR,

If you want to deify Mother Teresa, I suppose you are free to do so. But why do it? She was trendily viewed by the mass media as a model of altruism, but c'mon take a look beyond the surface level.

If she was so moral, why did she not have the courage to challenge her own Church on moral issues? For instance, are women really inherently unfit for the priesthood? Is stem cell research really morally wrong? Is it really moral, in the wake of an AIDS epidemic in Africa, to tell people that using condoms is wrong?

[lightmystic]

Thank you for that post. I enjoyed reading the article, and there quite a few things I agree with. That said, I have some issues with it. I would be happy to discuss any of these points in greater detail with anyone interested. If you don't think agree, poke at both our interpretations. The truth will come out. Anyway, here are the points I take issue with:

"This initiation denotes Cosmic Consciousness and true clairvoyance and clairaudience"

What do powers in the dream world have to do at all with waking up from the dream world? I've certainly met Enlightened people who have these powers to some degree, but it has nothing to do with Enlightenment, and they will be the first to tell you that. Honestly, where do these ideas come from?


"It is a very holy rite and is not easily attained, coming after lifetimes of sacrifice for the common good of humankind."

There is no need to "sacrifice for the common good of mankind." Nothing is out of place, there is no "need" to "merit good karma" in order to wake up from the dream. Now, don't get me wrong, it's true that one can get cool things by performing austerities. Doing tapas generates the heat of power whereby people can develop powers and purify themselves or whatever, but helping mankind is only one way to do that. And there are many methods of purification, but 90% of that has nothing do with waking up from the dream. There is no need to wait if one wants to wake up, they just have to be willing to deal with their issues, which is not a small thing, but there's nothing stopping a person from doing that if that's what they want/need to do.

"What is a spiritual achievement? It is a pure sacrifice of self for others. It is well to remember that the Hierarchy does not go on appearances."

Spiritual achievement is a misnomer, because it's not more, it's less. It has nothing to do with anything for or against "others". It's simply getting experientially clear on what is really going on. There is no hierarchy. You cannot wear Enlightenment like a badge of honor. The whole idea is ridiculous. If there is reverence and devotion of a highly integrated being, it's only because one is recognizing their own divine self in them.

The article goes on to talk about various rites and rituals. These can certainly be done, and every tradition has it's things, but it ultimately doesn't really matter, and this description is just one of many many many possibilities of a successful discipleship.

They talk about betrayal being the worst thing. Betrayal of what? What does that even mean? How can a guru be betrayed? The whole premise is ridiculous from my point of view.

The closing points, however, about not deifying teachers and that there's no "teaching" is just sharing is appreciated. If course there's no teaching, we're just pointing people toward the recognition of their already experiencing.

Dec 8, 2008 1:18:45 GMT -5 commiejesus said:

I want to put this debate to rest, we can say anything now but when under the gun we act and that is what's important. What do we do? Our desires and intentions are important yet secondary in this debate. I would like all to read my former teacher's essay on guru/disciple relationship and thus get a better picture where he was "coming from", when this statement originated.
www.ancientwisdomcentral.us/guru.html

Dec 6, 2008 14:29:18 GMT -5 fear said:

commiejesus, you're right about 3rd parties having no right to judge. In your previous post you said your teacher would kill for his guru. Isn't your teacher the third party judging his guru's killer.

Second it doesn't matter if the guru intervenes, the intent to muder with the belief that you are doing something positive is destructive. I can see that but I don't have to judge him for that. I could act in a positive way by maybe blocking my guru with my body and showing the attacker that I'm willing to die without stooping to his level.

Adyashanti said that Gandhi and Mother Teresa were so sucessful because the never went against anyone they were for something but not against anything.
Gandhi was for India but not against the British.
Mother Teresa was for the poor but was not against the rich.

[fear]

Don't agree with everything in your link commiejesus because it clearly shows attachment through the chain of gurus. And it's sad that even if the truth was shown to you, you would probably still pick your guru over the truth.

[Morrie]

LM,

I think you coming at this too abstractly with your head in the clouds and missed the basic point I was trying to make about Mother Teresa. The problem I have with Mother Teresa is the hypocrisy she represented as a spiritual figure, that was the basic point. Does criticizing Mother Teresa somehow threaten you?

Dec 8, 2008 11:32:06 GMT -5 lightmystic said:

Of course she had her issues like everyone else, but, at first glance, the book seems silly. So she accepted some illegal money to help the poor. Who knows if she even knew where it came from. Why do people care? People act like there's some objective morality about what is "right" and they somehow know this.

That's just so ridiculous to me.

Dec 6, 2008 17:21:15 GMT -5 Morrie said:

FEAR,

If you want to deify Mother Teresa, I suppose you are free to do so. But why do it? She was trendily viewed by the mass media as a model of altruism, but c'mon take a look beyond the surface level.

If she was so moral, why did she not have the courage to challenge her own Church on moral issues? For instance, are women really inherently unfit for the priesthood? Is stem cell research really morally wrong? Is it really moral, in the wake of an AIDS epidemic in Africa, to tell people that using condoms is wrong?

[lightmystic]

Hehe, you think my heads in clouds, huh?

Notice: the following tirade is not a personal attack, nor is it to be treated too seriously. Any concept of dualistic reality is not the whole truth. That includes your opinion. Your mother's opinion, your friends' opinion, and, of course, my opinions:

Firstly, I don't see what mother teresa did as hypocrisy at all. From what I've heard, it sounded like she got funds like she always does, didn't go into serious detail checking the source, spent it on the poor, and now everyone's crying about it. That's the height of ridiculousness if you ask me. Maybe there's more to the story than that, but until I see an evidence of real hypocrisy, it just seems so petty.

Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that it WAS hypocrisy (and I haven't heard any solid evidence for it yet - maybe you can fill me in). Anyone who spends all their time working with the poor and sick deserves the appreciation she gets in my book. She could be money laundering on the side for all I care, does that make her work with the poor less amazing in it's own right?
See, that's the thing. People get so moralistic about this sort of thing. If a Mafia hitman brings toys to homeless children on Christmas, then it's touching. If we find out the guy bringing toys to children on christmas is a mafia hitman we get disturbed. Hehe. It just depends on the direction you are coming from.

You say I'm coming at it too abstractly. What does that even mean? It sounds like you feel like I'm not going with your assumption that spiritual people are supposed to fulfill this moral definition of perfect. Who says that they are? I read an interview with mother teresa where she admits that she had a deeply spiritual experience and then it was gone, so she spent the majority of her life feeling like a hypocrite. She thought she was supposed to be perfect too.

The question that I want to ask is "why?" Seriously, why should "spiritual figures" be perfect? and by what definition of perfect? How perfect? the whole thing is silly from my perspective. It actually kind of sounds like you're the one feeling threatened. But I'm more than happy to be wrong about that, and we can talk about it to find the truth. Addressing the questions above would help get to the bottom of the truth of that matter, assuming that's what you want.

I don't see my disagreement with you as a personal thing. You can threaten my ideas all you want, they're flexible. It's only what's ultimately true that matters to me. Thus, the idea of threat seems misplaced, (from my POV). There's one truth out there and we're both coming together to find it, that's all. The one who was "wrong" is actually the one who has the most to gain from the experience. The whole point of putting these ideas down on a spiritual forum so they can be poked in the first place. If you don't want to be poked, you might try a "love and light" spiritual forum. Alternatively, you can simply state that you don't want your opinion to be challenged. I will happily respect that, but it doesn't make for much of an honest back and forth dialogue.

Why do you feel like I was feeling threatened? Is it because I am arguing against your point? There's no disrespect intended in that and no hard feelings. At least, not from my side. In fact, if anything, I see an unwillingness to be open and direct with you as a lack of respect more than being forthright. Anyway, let me know what you think.

Christ! Can't we all just get along?!

Dec 13, 2008 9:41:57 GMT -5 Morrie said:

LM,

I think you coming at this too abstractly with your head in the clouds and missed the basic point I was trying to make about Mother Teresa. The problem I have with Mother Teresa is the hypocrisy she represented as a spiritual figure, that was the basic point. Does criticizing Mother Teresa somehow threaten you?

Dec 8, 2008 11:32:06 GMT -5 lightmystic said:

Of course she had her issues like everyone else, but, at first glance, the book seems silly. So she accepted some illegal money to help the poor. Who knows if she even knew where it came from. Why do people care? People act like there's some objective morality about what is "right" and they somehow know this.

That's just so ridiculous to me.