Trial and errorrealimposterSeptember 1 2006, 15:14:21 UTC
I think the big issue with your question is that it automatically leads one into the quagmire of paralysis-analysis. There is, IMHO, no way to completely "validate" a spiritual authority standing from the outside, just as there is no way to validate the legitimacy or efficacy of a doctor when you haven't entrusted yourself to their care. Sure, the diploma may say "Harvard" but are they any good? Or better yet, will their services prove any good for you?
This is, I am afraid, one of those choices that requires some degree of "faith" and I fully admit the limitations this brings with it. But, speaking from personal experience, I can definitely say that two of the spiritual traditions I spent extensive time with showed either no positive results -- which I define under terms including furthering my own sense of attainment and self-advancement towards enlightenment (yeah, yeah, I know, how vague) -- or even negative results while the third has allowed me to make some progress, though that progress has been slower than I would have liked. Part of that I blame on my laziness. The other way rest squarely with this vehicle.
As for coming to an answer to this question, I think taking action and experimentation is the only way to answer it. Otherwise, you risk just wasting your entire life analyzing and waffling and never learning anything.
Re: Trial and errorlhasa7September 1 2006, 16:30:55 UTC
Right, and my previous statement was a little misleading, in that I did sort of poke my head in the door at one point. But this question was always sort of lurking in the back of my mind, and I never felt that it was properly addressed by the folks I was in contact with. Which is not to say that I wasn’t lazy or diffident as well in my own right.
Otherwise, I tend to the notion that ‘Truth is one, paths are many’, and it’s up to the individual to figure out what works for them. I haven’t really made a mature effort with Christianity and am probably tending in that direction these days, though the obstacles are not inconsiderable. I do feel sort of an instinct to cultivate what I was given at the outset. And the sort of Vedantic thing I was drawn toward at one point seems to lack what Richard M. Weaver called ‘the power to bind’, which seems sort of necessary to me on some level.
This is, I am afraid, one of those choices that requires some degree of "faith" and I fully admit the limitations this brings with it. But, speaking from personal experience, I can definitely say that two of the spiritual traditions I spent extensive time with showed either no positive results -- which I define under terms including furthering my own sense of attainment and self-advancement towards enlightenment (yeah, yeah, I know, how vague) -- or even negative results while the third has allowed me to make some progress, though that progress has been slower than I would have liked. Part of that I blame on my laziness. The other way rest squarely with this vehicle.
As for coming to an answer to this question, I think taking action and experimentation is the only way to answer it. Otherwise, you risk just wasting your entire life analyzing and waffling and never learning anything.
Reply
Otherwise, I tend to the notion that ‘Truth is one, paths are many’, and it’s up to the individual to figure out what works for them. I haven’t really made a mature effort with Christianity and am probably tending in that direction these days, though the obstacles are not inconsiderable. I do feel sort of an instinct to cultivate what I was given at the outset. And the sort of Vedantic thing I was drawn toward at one point seems to lack what Richard M. Weaver called ‘the power to bind’, which seems sort of necessary to me on some level.
Reply
Leave a comment