Blink:

You know, it is kind of dangerous when people aren't even allowed to question something, whether that something be a stock broker, a political leader, a guru, a...............



Quote:

It's a little like "prohibition," Recoverer. That movie didn't work here in the U.S. early in the 20th century.

It doesn't play very well anywhere that I can see.

Any idea which is perceived as a "prohibition" can stimulate people to want to disagree with you, even if they wish they could agree.
*****

LOVE: playing in a theatre near you.


blink

Recoverer,

I question everything, even you.

When you die, and we all get to know you even better than we do here.....would you like for us to ferret out every last thing you might have done in error and hold it up for all in the kingdoms of light to stare at forever?

God, will that ever get boring.

love, blink

Surely nobody is suggesting that we shouldn't question sources (teachers, writers etc) R. The opposite in fact - the message seems to be that it'd be unwise in the extreme to somehow place high levels of confidence in anybody without a lot of experience and knowledge of that person.

There's a really important point buried in this which I'd really appreciate you would at least consider.

Questioning and judging are not the same.

Questioning implies applying discrimination while staying centred and open to all aspects of a person or situation - remaining able to varying degrees to take on board that which makes sense, while holding off (deferring final judgement) on that which does not.

It clearly doesn't make much sense to make an unconditional commitment to a writer or teacher we're getting a mixed or unclear message from, and there are of course sources out there who quite clearly are seeking to use others for their own ends.

There's a range of responses open to us - from taking steps to engage with to learn more from a source, to deciding to invest no further time in it unless something changes. The latter very quickly in some cases. With various middle ground options in between.

The problem we face though is that while knowledge is important it's never really possible to reach an absolute position on stuff - we have to learn to become easy with this groundlessness. To stop grasping after firm ground or certainty, because this is (a) not usually possible given our human limits  and (b) usually driven by ego needs. (to become easy with 'knowing but not knowing' to coin a phrase) Which ability is one hallmark of spiritual progress. It's the opposite of the building of blocks of 'truth' one upon the other that many regard as progress.

It's perfectly right and reasonable to express a balanced and limited view on those sources we come in contact with - provided we don't overplay our hand.

Learning to lightly and sure footedly navigate this jungle is surely a key skill if we are to learn and progress in a dualistic world where the limits of language and conceptual mind mean that spiritual truths can rarely if ever be expressed as absolutes. Even a very good teacher or writer is not necessarily going to be right (or seen right) all of the time, but the opposite is usually true too.

Buddhism distinguishes as above between prajna (true wisdom or dsicrimination) and it's facsimilie - ego driven  'know-it-all-ed-ness'. The former brings happiness, the latter suffering.

Judging implies a final decision on somebody or something. This would be fine if we had complete knowledge of the facts, and that our own use of them was accurate and complete. But it's almost never that way.

Meaning that most judgements which wholesale accept or reject teachers tend to be highly dualistic, or based on the facsimilie outlined above. That world plays the hero or zero game of the tabloid media - based on sketchy and usually hearsay information received from a distance with knowing the context. Or informed by cultural or religious values or norms which don't necessarily hold water.

The complete rejection of a source can of course be legitimate. But the reality seems to be that much of the time we can't help letting a personal agenda come into play.

One downside of 'judging' sources (and indeed other people) is that we condemn ourselves to the spiritual equivalent of serial marriage. Our current hero teacher, tradition or source will sooner or later be seen to have skid marks on its underwear, and will be rejected as flawed. To be replaced by the next big thing glistening there on its pedestal....

One give away is the more strident and closed minded form of campaigning - it betrays that it's likely that the driver of the situation is the judge's investment (for whatever reason) in the position he/she has adopted rather than any ongoing rational assessment of the source. That proving the adopted position to be 'right' is as (or even more) important than getting to the (relative) truth of any situation.

This approach stands to do as much harm as good. It's true that people get led astray by false teachers, but that's mostly a consequence of their own neediness and inability to make a wise call and is a part of the learning experience too.  They too have their own wisdom and knowing, and their own path. We have to trust in this.

We most certainly should speak up where we see people risking going astray, but moderately. Those that out of neediness are drawn to false sources will usually not anyway listen to advice - wise or not. Driven by ego needs they will do what they must  do.

Much as in the case of the judge....

recoverer wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 6:43pm:


This seems to represent a breakthrough.
The same sentiment applied to an internal dialog of persistent negativity might enable one to stop recovering and start living.

- u

Thanks R, that's progress for me too. I'll park it.

Gee, it seems to me that everyone got to say what they thought....maybe I'm completely mistaken, but I see lots of replies here with lots of people saying exactly what they thought.

love, blink

Great post Justin. Even the last paragraph. Perhaps I should bonk myself on the head for my participation on this thread, even if Alan did ask.