Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler)
Subject: Nonduality (follow up)
Date: Tue, 21 May 91 19:47:18 GMT
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Ready Systems
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Message-ID: <1991May21.194718.17225@nas.nasa.gov>
Lines: 114

In Article: 54 of soc.religion.eastern, J.C. writes:

>
>John,
>     Sorry for assuming your affiliation w/ the Tib. lineage.  I was
>wondering, who is your teacher?  
>     As far as the attainment of wisdom is concerned I agree with you (to
>some extent) that an association with an 'enlightened being' is beneficial.

*This is valued in all traditions that I am aware of, so I think we are
 all in agreement here. (johnw)*

>But I am concerned with your assertion regarding the depth of your
>teacher's insight, not so much in terms of my standards of what
>enlightenment is, but the very notion of comparison.  The obvious question,
>as raised by other participants, is how do you know he/she is fully
>enlightened? Also, by what standard do you base your judgment of who is
>more enlightened than another?  It seems to me that when one engages in
>this type of comparison one is, at best, clouded by one's own prejudices
>or, at worst, 'doing propaganda' for one's own teacher/tradition, etc. 

*I assure you, I have no intent of drawing comparisons or doing "propaganda,"
 as you call it. As I mentioned, my intent was simply to share something
 that may be of interest to some readers of the net. Of course, some may
 not be interested either, which is fine, too.

 True spiritual growth or development has as its goal the experience of
 freedom, happiness, and peace, I would maintain. So, I would venture
 to guess that the degree of these qualities that one experiences (and
 also the depth to which one experiences them) in one's life is probably
 a good indicator of the "level" of one's spiritual "attainment". Perhaps this
 can also be thought of in terms of absence of bondage, suffering, and
 limitation of any sort, as well. I think it is not too difficult to
 tell whether people we meet are happy or whether they are suffering, so
 it is not all that mysterious to perceive the depth of their spiritual
 realization, is it?

 As far as knowing whether a certain teacher is or is not enlightened, it could
 only be decided by first hand experience, I would guess. What would be
 the way of making such an evaluation? You would probably rely on the same
 faculty within you that enables you to discriminate whether the people
 you meet are happy or not. You might also look for consistency between the
 teacher's words and his life. Does his manifested life correspond to the
 teaching he professes? Are others able to follow the path and gain the
 same experience for themselves? Is the teaching in accord with the time-tested
 methods proclaimed by enlightened beings in history? Does contact with
 the teacher lead to deepening levels of spiritual freedom for oneself?
 I would venture to guess that answering these kinds of questions would
 give one some degree of confidence in "evaluating" the depth of a teacher's
 realization.*

>     It is a good idea to acknowledge that, as human beings, we crave
>CERTAINTY, and one assurance of this is to believe in some fully awakened
>teacher who will show us the correct path, do the right thing, etc.  If
>this teacher of yours were to be found in a compromising position (as some
>gurus, zen masters, etc have), would disillusionment follow?  Do you see
>the games our mind plays on us?  The very notion of the perfect/imperfect
>idea stems from our thinking.  To see the shortcomings of this outlook is
>important, for even enlightened persons who are all too human can teach us
>a thing or two.

*The whole feeling of paranoia regarding whether certain teachers can be
 trusted, etc., is, unfortunately, somewhat justified, given the deplorable
 hypocrisy and fraud found in a large number of self-styled gurus and
 ringleaders in the "spiritual circus." The seeker must undoubtedly use
 his or her best discrimination when contemplating any particular path
 teaching. I disagree with the position of someone like J. Krishnamurti
 who says that categorically and by defintion ANY teacher is automatically
 a fraud or trying dupe the public. This is going to an extreme. If Buddha
 would not have taught, how would sentient beings have benefited by his
 realization? How would we have any knowledge of any of the great
 philosophers and masters of ancient times? Although discrimination is
 certainly called for, paranoia is not, I feel.*

 
>     There is a more important issue here regarding the dialogue with
>others on the nets.  By assuming-- actually you can assume, rather the
>PUBLIC assertion that your teacher is fully awakened puts you in a position
>of authority since we who have no access to him/her are at a disadvantage.
>>From this perspective, all you have to do is keep pushing your view of
>ultimate reality to us unfortunate ones, because it is you who have the
>good fortune of living with the embodiment of wisdom.  In actuality, you
>are caught in the vicious circle most bible thumpers are (this is not a
>judgment of your teacher; he may be a bodhisattva for all I know).  What is
>this circle? 1) we really should accept your viewpoint because 2) you are
>exposed to the true teachings since 3) your master is the fully enlightened
>one, the reality of this judgment being that it is your viewpoint (#1) that
>he is indeed enlightened. 

*Again, it has not been my attempt to assert or assume, publicly or
 otherwise, anything. I have simply stated what I believe to true
 based on my experience. If anyone feels it could be of interest to them
 that's great and I would certainly facilitate their attempts to
 pursue it for themselves.*

>     I apologize if my remarks seem abrasive; but let us keep in mind that
>most westerners who leave their given traditions (i.e., xtianity, etc.)
>usually follow a 'new' path with the same exclusivness and ferver that
>drove them away from their original 'faith'.  Before you tell us of your
>teacher's spiritual status again, please consider my (erroneous?)
>observation.
>     As aconcluding note, let me say that it would be safe for all of us to
>assume that our words, explanations, and analyses do not accurately mirror
>"reality". In other words, our discussions are for the most part
>theoretical (this does not mean our ideas are 'wrong' but only partial; the
>insights we discuss are derivative of learning from spiritual guides,
>reading texts, personal meditation, etc.), and that our exchange of ideas
>will be of mutual help to all, but that no one idea shall reign supreme.
>     OK, enough 'preaching'.
 
*I appreciate your thoughtful and considered replies. I hope that our
dialogues over the last few weeks have been worthwhile. I know I have
learned frome them and enjoyed them, too. Take care. johnw*