Well, I'm not denying anyone his or her right to be insulting or uncivil (yes, I know the word -- it was a typo, no need being sarcastic), but after 35 plus years of these kind of discussions, I guess I'm just getting tired of it.  I like what you say in a lot of your posts.  I agree with some of what you and Mr. McDougall say about the Bible, but there's no reason to call people "ridiculous"  or needing "their head's examined" as he does just because they believe what they do.   Sounds like name calling to me.

Fundamentalists get on my nerves too, believe me, but I've had far more productive discussions with them after I quit being insulting and offered some love and respect.  IMHO this is the higher spiritual path.

Besides, I do believe there is a spiritual law of karma, or sowing and reaping, or whatever you want to call it, and I guess I'm just trying to reverse some of my many past transgressions!   

Shining wrote on Aug 14^th, 2008 at 11:41pm:



I agree, one shouldn't be insulting, and I've tried not to be in this thread. But I still don't think anyone has gone too far in this thread. Also, you must understand, I wasn't being sarcastic, I honestly thought it was a proper word I hadn't seen before.

recoverer said, Quote:


What you call your "understanding about gurus" as you offer it, is put forth as a broadly negative sweeping generalization which does not account for different individual cases. Even the way you say it is telling. By the same token I could say, "I understood about bigots years before I made spiritual contact with Christ".

This is probably the umpteenth time someone here has mentioned this regarding the penchant for making this meaningless generalization, as well as additionally pointing out the intellectual fallacy (because they are arbitrary), and the resulting real-life implications of making such blanket generalizations (potentially damaging in an instance not conforming to the generalization). As another substitution exercise to illumine the foolishness of such generalizations I am sure you can think of some parallel generalizations regarding race that will illustrate my point quite easily.

recoverer said, Quote:



One at a time:
(a) Christ is not the only light being. Accepted.
(b) There are many wonderful light beings. Accepted.
(c) We are all destined to becoming light beings. Accepted.
(d) We are limited in our consciousness while in the physical due to ignorance. Accepted.
(e) We have things to share with others in our journeys. Accepted. But - here is where a problem starts: What do we choose to share, especially if we agree that we are limited  in our understanding? That limitation opens the door for some question as to what needs to be shared and what doesn't.  

As to "enlightened" -
(1) saying one is "enlightened" when they are. I addressed that quandry in the off-topic area
(2) "when we aren't" implies there is no case in which this might be true.
I guess this brings up the question of whether you believe it is possible for a human to be fully enlightened, God-realized, etc.
For me, I accept it as real.
(3) saying one is enlightened when they aren't.
Who makes the call in that case? You? Ok for yourself, but not for me. What if you think they aren't but they are? How might that effect (e)or even a pursuit of (c) for that matter? If they say they are, but they aren't, then people will have their own direct experience according to their own necessity and make their own conclusions (as per their own guidance) - they have to do this anyway, r, without your intercessional "warnings", again, based on (d). Also, as a variant using another profession: Suppose someone claims to be a "Master Electrician" but they are far from it. Does that mean that a person who needs to have a light switch changed should not employ them? Point is - there is a continuum of need and fulfilment with all kinds of messy untidy definitions and interdependancies - including that a person may play many roles simultaneously. This was well discussed in my first post in this thread.  Life involves the exploration and navigation of those issues in infinite possibility and variation and having the direct experience of it - not mediated by you, unless you are saying that you are fully enlightened?
Is that where this is going?  

For me the whole silly argument comes down to this: The creation was designed for maximum access by differentiated beings. God (or the Highest) within each being is responsible for the consequences of exploring that access according to individual need, receptivity and capacity. If you want to attempt to limit others' access based on an admittedly limited understanding, please try to understand that that does not constitute the engagement of your own similar God-given right to explore your own access. It is instead, a projection of that "limited understanding" towards a negation of others' search. It imposes an assumed "rational" objectivity onto a recipient which may be more acceptable in moral, ethical intellectual context, but in the spiritual context, other "rules" apply - mainly, that the individual subjective experience becomes primary. Now if you wanted to end up with some kind of fascist theocracy where even if you couldn't define your own beliefs as a "denomination", you could still employ some sweeping generalizations based on limited understanding/ignorance to deny, disparage, restrict others' access to (b) according to you, this is where you seem to be going with your intent. The inevitable conclusion of this intention may also be seen demonstrated in Mr Ross.

What you consistently propose r, is that according to your admittedly limited consciousness, you not only have a right, but an obligation to intercede on behalf of other beings and illumine them on what according to your limited understanding, is not "authentic". What if you are not authentic? How about just deal with your own experiences - ie:. inspire people with something positive from your own search. But throw a wet blanket on others? I know that in my own case alone, what you have projected is not valid for me because it has not been my direct experience, so just on my account alone your premise and action is wrong. There are others too, you have basically told that they do not have a right to be inspired by, to access certain sources you feel are "fake" - all because of your admittedly "limited understanding" - when in truth and fact this flies in the face of their own testitimony that it did inspire them, did help them, did transform them, did solve their problems etc. So, how can you ignore that? Are you deaf? Blind? Or maybe you are trying to raise some tax on their inspiration? Should they pay tribute to your ignorance by denying their own experience and conclusions? Do you really want to be that kind of a bully? This has been tried and it does not work.  Being God's self-appointed spiritual "gatekeeper" to others does not work for spiritual quest. It might work for corporate, institutional, financial, scientific - a whole host of "outer world" mundane phenomena, where so-called rational "objectivity" rules, but not in spirituality. In that spiritual context, one person's ignorance is enough to deal with. In that context, a shift has taken place in which all those "objective" issues are dealt with individually, internally, subjectively. In the spiritual life there really can be no other way. This is actually part of what the spiritual life is.

recoverer said, Quote:


Ahhhh. A breath of fresh air.
See? What I'm talkin about!!
And why do we feel that way? Because it is the divine within each. The same divine that will guide each.

(Even though you did not answer my question on the distinction between reverance vs. pedestal, but I'll let it go for now)

recoverer said, Quote:


Yes, for yourself....discrimminate away...
Let's discrimminate further:
What is actually intrusive to your mind r, is that I simply quoted and referred to sources you don't happen to like or use, for whatever deep seated prejudice as manifested by some silly sweeping generalizations you think you must impose on others.

Of course you are entitled to your discrimmination, but I have not spoken ABOUT sources. I have quoted, referenced or linked to passages of text written by those sources that were on topic, relevant and responsive within the context of the threads. You never once addressed those items in and of themselves r, but went into imo childish emotionally reactive accusations of "fake" about the sources. You have used this ploy in many other discussions referencing other sources. It seems that there were a few brave and intellectually honest members who were able to discuss the passages on their own merits - or at least acknowledge them, or just read them and assess the intrinsic truth value without comment, but you were not able to do so. Now, before anyone asserts that "in a debate" this issue of attacking source in this way is valid, let me point out that what this attempts to do is, e.g.: In a discussion on the aesthetics of paintings to say, "Van Gogh's paintings suck and I can't look at them or discuss them, because he supposedly cut his ear off, and I don't like that!! I'm going home, but not before I ruin the party by changing the subject to the bloody ear..." That would be my definition of intrusion relative to this issue.

recoverer said, Quote:


R, I am sure you are not a disgruntled creep, but you often sound like one, to me anyway. I hear bitterness residing nervously in many of your comments of this nature. I can't tell you what to do, but it seems that for all the discussion on PUL, that an application of it to this matter might prove to be useful. Can you imagine that you could be wrong? Can you imagine that your comments can be damaging to others? What kind of comment does the least harm? I can tell you that from my pov - your current approach seems not pure (based on the limits and distortions of individual ignorance), and not unconditional (ie others' choices must meet your conditions in order to be accepted in oneness). And that is not love - certainly not PUL. It may be some kind of moral or intellectual judgement which tends toward divisiveness. Good for debates that end in fights and hurt feelings, but is that your intention for participation here? I don't think so because I've seen plenty of your posts that do not do this and they are very inspiring to me and I am sure others as well, but when you begin to insert "that other stuff", imo you are undermining your own effectiveness and credibility (must you say those things to make your points?), as well possibly discouraging and doing damage in some way to others, especially new people with less experience.

recoverer said, Quote:


I agree. That's why I bring all this up. Also, these discussions can never imo establish any "objective truth" by debating. Nobody is ever going to win nor is that really the point for a forum such as this. If anything, these discussions serve as much or more to reveal issues within the process of seeking and searching itself.

It is fine to reveal one's belief's: "I don't believe this" , "I do believe that", "These are my beliefs.", "Those are not my beliefs".
But unfortunately that is not what is being discussed now.



recoverer said, Quote:



I think I am being pro-active and not defensive.
My position is the same on Christ, Chinmoy, ACIM, Osho, Seth, Elias, Urantia, Hilarion, you name it. If it works for somebody - anybody, even one person, it is not my right to disparage. Especially if they tell me it helped them. We could talk about the content though without having to insult peoples choices and interests....Believe me, there are plenty of sources people use that I do not have a high opinion of, and.....that is why I simply do not use those sources.. In many cases I established my opinion not by arguing on a discussion forum and letting other people mediate my awareness by disparaging the source, but by directly investigating the products of those sources and determining the merit for my own search directly. Amazingly, even in the cases of things I ended up having the lowest regard for, I still think I was able to learn something positive and useful from the exposure. Some even played the role of "stepping stones" at one time and I no longer use them - not because they were "fake", but because I have simply moved on in those cases.

If another person is finding merit and utility in those same sources at this time in THEIR life at this moment, who am I to discourage them? Is that an expression of PUL? I seriously do not think so. Why should I disparage someone's quest by essentially saying, "You know, what you like and use is fake. The inspiration, the progress, the positive shifts you are experiencing are really not valid as a result. In fact, you are not even having them because I don't like your source. I know this and you don't. This is why I am telling you - out of my goodness". This is too big of a responsibility - It is a very complex landscape with first of all and encompassing everything else that follows: God's Will in and through any person,  soul promises, karmic connections, debts and liabilities, aspirations, degrees of receptivity and capacity, free will, etc. Are you really wanting to get involved in that? Personally, I want to trust that the divine within anyone's search will guide them, even if they make "mistakes", which is also not my call.

From a less philsophical pov and related to forum function, I think if you want to approach your premise more constructively, and if it is such an urgent matter to warn others (perhaps because you do not trust that the divine is operating within them (as in reverance for all beings) - you could simply start threads called:   "__X__ is a fake",  and then the discussion could proceed directly in that course without having to "railroad" so many threads off topic. As you can see by my off-topic response to you, I am not averse to such explorations. Maybe others would not find them distasteful either. But that particular exploration was not the original intention of the threads I introduced passages of text into, or simply discussed issues brought up without making external references.  Either that - or please be intellectually honest enough to make the effort to actually read and comment on the quoted passage itself as it pertains to the discussion once in a while, instead of having to assasinate the author of the passage as a substitute.  

This brings up a related issue - that of "thought police". People need to realize that this concept "swings both ways". What I mean is that when someone introduces on-topic, relevant, responsive quotes/links/referencess to text from authors they use and are inspired by, and the repeated response is an attack on the author (or even the poster, accused of "promoting" certain authors) without any attempt to discuss the actual material itself as it applies to the thread, this has a potentially conditioning effect on anybody who might want to post or refer to passages from any source. One may begin at some point to feel guilty, apologetic or hesitant and not even try to make a sincere contribution based on what their individual experience encompasses, because they have seen or experienced this kind of response to theirs or others' contribution -ie: it was not treated with due respect. There are whole long threads that exemplify this point.  

recoverer said, Quote:


I agree with you up to a point. The initiating impetus for this aspect of the discussion was your positing the following premise:
That: "gurus who point to themselves are necessarily fake", or something similar. My response to that premise was my very first post in this thread in which I took the ball and ran with it a little, also for a constructive purpose, in which I never mentioned Chinmoy - in another instance of initiating a certain direction that is - diverting topic to accuse sources not liked as being fake. Well, like they say in the lawyer shows: "You opened the door counselor. I'll allow it". I was simply being responsive to your direction, but also had to divert that part of the discussion into off- topic for those reasons mentioned above, something that should also speak illustratively to the issue at hand.

One last thing. After I read the post I am now responding to, I was wondering what to make of it and asked for some assistance. I went for a long walk and returned some stuff at a store. On the way back I found myself walking not too far behind a fairly young dad and his todler son, who was so young he was barely able to hold the bat and ball and walk at the same time. (I guess they were going to a nearby school yard). As I got closer I heard the young boy asking his father to teach him how to play baseball. When he said this we were all passing in front of a house where there was an old "grandpa" type of guy in his front yard puttering around, who also heard the boy say this. The old man immediately said, "Your dad is the best baseball teacher in the whole world". The dad smiled, acknowledging the man. Now, from a so-called objective, moral, ethical pov, a great fraud had been perpetrated: Grandpa lied, the boy was mislead, and dad on behalf of his huge ego accepted the false flattery making him comlplicit in the fraud against his son at the boy's own expense. But from a pov of PUL, everybody was a winner, even me who witnessed the whole thing which I was grateful for, because it seemed to sum up this whole dilemma.

- u

Ultra:

I have only one more thing to say. I believe it is possible for a person to reach the point where they can determine whether a source of information is what it claims to be. All a person has to do is try. A hard thing to do if a person is intent on coming up with justifications and rationalizations for the source they want to defend. I know of people who have found the same as me. They aren't negative people. They are people who through experience have learned the hard way. Perhaps sometimes it is okay for them to share their experience with others. What a sad World this World would be if we couldn't share our experience with others.

Ultra:

Nothing more to say. Some would say that even though it is okay for people to share their experience with others, it isn't okay to share one's extensive experience with gurus.

I do appreciate your interest in standing up for that which you believe to be divine. Nothing wrong with that.

If you ever see me refer to a source you know to be false, feel completely free to tell me.