The spiritual conversation is difficult, and therefore, skillful

[happy soul]

naturesflow and Gem,

You both seem to be saying that wisdom comes from within, from one's own experience, and external suggestion must be explored internally and experientially in order to become wisdom. I agree with that, and it's exactly what I needed to hear.

FallingLeaves,

I agree that there are certainly many instances in which wisdom would appear as folly to most, and in which ignorance would seem wise. In fact, I was thinking about something similar just before I read your post.

It was that many people feel that returning attack for attack (vengeance, retaliation, etc.) is wise, and also self-loving, strong, courageous, and powerful. According to ACIM, it is none of those things. Rather that way of thinking is surely an example of the Biblical teaching, 'There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.' That scripture refers imo to the way of 'loving' oneself at the expense of others. Greed and failing to share are another example of this false form of self-love.

BT, thanks for understanding. I'm glad we can trust each other.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by happy soul

naturesflow and Gem,

You both seem to be saying that wisdom comes from within, from one's own experience, and external suggestion must be explored internally and experientially in order to become wisdom. I agree with that, and it's exactly what I needed to hear.

FallingLeaves,

I agree that there are certainly many instances in which wisdom would appear as folly to most, and in which ignorance would seem wise. In fact, I was thinking about something similar just before I read your post.

It was that many people feel that returning attack for attack (vengeance, retaliation, etc.) is wise, and also self-loving, strong, courageous, and powerful. According to ACIM, it is none of those things. Rather that way of thinking is surely an example of the Biblical teaching, 'There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.' That scripture refers imo to the way of 'loving' oneself at the expense of others. Greed and failing to share are another example of this false form of self-love.

BT, thanks for understanding. I'm glad we can trust each other.

I like how your articulated what you perceived I was sharing. Its spot on for me in how I understand myself deeper.

[Swami Chihuahuananda]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Agree full stop Swami and hello there! We each have a piece and we need all of them, ultimately. Hey that's the answer to Starman's "Absolute Reality" thread, I reckon :)

And yep, it certain can be difficult
I have been looking into quantum stuff too lately, on a tip from God-Like on another thread. It got me thinking about some stuff.

BTW you can go check out my ponderings on the Harmonic Reactor thread in the Science & Spirituality thread if you want to see where it led me... :)

I will check out the book sometime too - I've heard of it but hadn't really dug into it.

Peace & blessings
7L

Well, since you're on a quantum kick, 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order'
will be a book you'll find intriguing in several ways, I think. Bohm was a very high-level physicist , but also had a mystical bent, and studied meditation as well. Much of the book is way over my head , especially the math parts, but those don't take up much of it. It's a painstaking read but everything I've managed to decipher is about things I sort of understood already, but are explained in such impressively (and difficult, at times) ways that many times
I had to just stop and go "why didn't they just say so ", or "why couldn't I have read this 30 years ago ?" . He really has a deep knowledge of the material, and uses normal language in intricate ways to convey his ideas.

He really gets down deep and made me get how, on a physical level, on the tiny scale, the boundaries between object and process disappear , how separation between the object/process and the observing apparatus is meaningless , and how also the distinction between seemingly separate bits of matter/energy and the ground (source) from which they (and everything)
arise isn't real or important except for looking at various incomplete aspects of the whole . That's the big sort of revelation, if you will, the titular
awareness , that what is is undivided wholeness .

Fragmentation is an almost automatic thing ...ah , well this fragment belongs in a different thread, so ... yeah ... I got the book a few years back but couldn't deal with it. This time I skipped to the last 1/3 and got sucked in

[Gem]

Originally Posted by happy soul

I think it depends on what you mean by 'spiritual masters use different language but point to the same unspoken Truths'.

They POINT to the same truths, ultimately, but often different teachers and masters disagree greatly.

J. Krishnamurti for example had a completely different view of things than Paramhansa Yogananda. I remember many years ago trying to figure out who was right. Now I know that BOTH perspectives are valid, although definitely contradictory.

Two different perspectives can indeed be contradictory but valid.

I agree with Gem that teachers and masters often have vastly different and unique teachings.

Yes there a great many examples of one teacher contradicting another, and the misconception as I see it is the 'special status position' of teachers. The meditation will destroy all stations of authority, both external and internal. But so saying doesn't imply that teachers are useless. It just implies they are not leaders to be followed. Many people will be against that because being entirely alone to 'find the way' is very unsettling, as there is nowhere to turn for any sort of security. So, the way I imagine it is, there are 'teachers' who take your hand to lead you along, and there are others who take your hand to walk alongside you.

In my case, I don't have special positions for anyone, and I do not follow another person, but of course I respect people who teach and do well to listen to what they say - but that's how I treat everyone - it's not because a 'special person' has a more worthy voice.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

a quote on one of the boards here recently was to the effect, anyone with true wisdom who then tries to impart it only looks foolish to others who don't already have it? So it cannot be taught, because it is built into the system that everyone who hadn't already found it for themselves would reject it outright?

and the poem 'if' (kipling) has more to say on the topic:

if you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools


which seems to indicate that maybe part of wisdom is to be able to understand the negative consequences to imparting wisdom?

Anyway, there are biblical scriptures (for example) that would bear out the thought that true wisdom looks foolish to mankind at large.

Yes, but the way I look at it is there is a learning that is just acquisition of knowledge, and another learning which is transforming. The latter can't actually be reduced to knowledge, because knowledge is 'written in stone', whereas the latter is necessarily transforming, deepening, and refined in nuances.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes there a great many examples of one teacher contradicting another, and the misconception as I see it is the 'special status position' of teachers. The meditation will destroy all stations of authority, both external and internal. But so saying doesn't imply that teachers are useless. It just implies they are not leaders to be followed. Many people will be against that because being entirely alone to 'find the way' is very unsettling, as there is nowhere to turn for any sort of security. So, the way I imagine it is, there are 'teachers' who take your hand to lead you along, and there are others who take your hand to walk alongside you.

In my case, I don't have special positions for anyone, and I do not follow another person, but of course I respect people who teach and do well to listen to what they say - but that's how I treat everyone - it's not because a 'special person' has a more worthy voice.

Not sure why this is about authority, or being "unsettled' to walk alone - it's just that if you want to learn Tai Chi, you might want to learn from a Tai Chi master and not think that imitating the form is the same thing

It has nothing to do with what you posit, in my opinion. In fact, I kind of think this excessive fear of listening to anyone else, despite it being a fact that there are spiritual masters in existence, points to some sort of inner psychological insecurity, but that's just a hunch.

As you stated at length in your other posts, and I disagree with, listening to a teacher does not make one just like a "trained dog" as you recently said. If we use the example of Buddhism, Buddhism is and has always been a "walk it yourself path" - just like learning martial arts, a teacher can instruct and guide, but the student does the work. For a student to stand up and think they are better than spiritual masters, or that their contradicting them is a sign of superiority and independence is fine if it works for them lol But to infer to others that it is somehow contradictory to listen to guidance and stand up on your own feet, or that it is unwise to listen to teachings especially where they contradict our imitated and limited forms, is off the mark, in my opinion. (Although in this thread, you now say that you do listen to the teachings so getting some consistency is the first step to some honest conversation -- if one can take it)

Also, as I said above, I don't believe that spiritual masters are often contradicting each other, but that the system and context they use to teach is specific and accurate within its context.

Finally, as noted in your other thread, you seem to suggest that people should follow their own thoughts and logic above that of e.g. Buddha. I don't find that approach generally successful but obviously you have confidence in your thoughts so YMMV

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...119450&page=30
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...119450&page=34
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...119450&page=35

BT

[7luminaries]

In no way do I want to criticise any one person.and there have been so many thoughtful posts on this thread. However I do want to share my I think it's good to be aware of the filters that others bring to a given context, including masters, teachers, and our received spiritual traditions.

First, some (not all) of our masters and teachers (historically and at present) have some fundamental filters, for example, that may conflate karma with the inhumanity we inflict upon one another, (so much of) which is completely voluntary and which does not implicate the victims or the oppressed, brutalised, or the enslaved for those actions.

I do think there has been overall progress in awareness globally over the last half century to one century, that this is a reactionary position and reflects humanity's current shortcomings first and foremost. This was a huge step forward, for which many died in recent centuries in class struggles and civil wars, in order to gain the most fundamental acknowledgment of their equal human worth. But the most initial steps are only just being taken here to address the topic, and the deeper truth of our shared worth which so many simply don't yet admit or acknowledge.

Additionally, many other masters have fundamental filters from infancy on, in which they were raised and reared in ways that inhibit them in some ways (cultures and spiritual traditions) regarding gender. Most if not all (let's just say all) cultures and religious traditions see incarnation as male or being male to be superior or more auspicious and favourable than being female.

Men, being male, are thus viewed in all traditions as being imbued with a greater spiritual toolkit and character, being seen as vaster and stronger intellectually and morally as well as physically...and therefore as being wholly deserving of the dominant position in society. The explicit and underlying assumption is that this is due to the direct spiritual backing of God or One -- where God or Source or Oneness is seen as having divinely ordained our reality which we create for ourselves, in this incorrect and simplistic justification of what we ourselves have in fact created and perpetrated onto one another. Thus, given this favourable structure which we ourselves have set up, men are logically viewed as having a much more auspicious position to progress on their journey.

As a woman you are paying back karma, it's simply understood, and this is your lot to endure. In one way or another, it was actually your fault and you deserve to be downtrodden Same as any less desirable thing or group (as noted above in my first point) but here it appears where rock-bottom foundational to humanity's existence and directly affecting half of humanity. Though in the modern era (last half century), East-West contact and global experiences of colonialism and oppression have caused some masters to acknowledge that the position of women in spiritual traditions (as well as in society and culture) also needs updated or revisited...riding on the coattails of a greater awareness of inequality and underdevelopment more broadly. This to me on the one hand is quite partial and frankly a bit lame -- but on the other hand they probably know that many don't want to deal with that white elephant in the room. Just as it has already taken centuries to acknowledge that humanity itself cause the perpetration of inequality of people and nations...that it's not "God" and not any one person's "bad karma".

Third, some masters and some traditions either ignore our destructive relationship not only with one another, not only men to women, but also humanity to earth. This one did not have the historical relevance of the other two items -- which were always present and always pressing spiritual issues, even if largely ignored or justified somehow. But is has become much more urgent in the modern era, due to the massive speeding up of the destruction we are perpetrating.

Based on these core couple of items alone, I do think that no tradition and no master can be followed blindly...nor wholly. To any good and truth in being and doing and learning, I have to offer a challenge to the integrity of the systems based on these core items. There is an integrity gap and it is present in every human tradition and even in every spiritual master -- perhaps we can exclude a handful at most...at most, IMO.

It doesn't render the truths or ways or insights wrong or invalid.
But it does render them partial, and not only in their assumptions or determinations of my spiritual worth and my capacity to progress in this lifetime, incarnated as a female. Or for others, incarnated as a poor minority in an underdeveloped region, etc. But it also renders them partial because they cannot fully know my experience or insight...even when we share a space in consciousness for a teaching. If they do not agree or understand, then perhaps I can share a lesson I and certain of my close soul family have received on foundational entanglement of consciousness and its implications for humanity's foundational reality Short of that level of entanglement, you cannot know me as I know me...even when we are sharing an intentional space of consciousness. NOR have the perspectives of and lessons from others like me ever been a part of the spiritual traditions nor of determining who & what matters in culture and society. So, anyway...I feel that there are core aspects of truth that will not be sought and thus shared in any of our traditions until these core integrity gaps are acknowledged. And until space is therefore made for them to be brought forward and addressed by a fuller spectrum of humanity.

The transcendentals and also some guides who are not Gaian in incarnation allow more space for my being and my consciousness. They can see me more truly due to a lack of these filters. But we don't have the transcendentals' level of consciousness nor longstanding written traditions transmitted from them. And of course ultimately we must rely on ourselves and on one another...after all, who knows better than we do, regarding just where those gaps are? I'm just saying that there are HUGE gaps, for me personally. And whilst there is much goodness and truth in what we have, there is still no getting around the gaps.

We have to fill those gaps for ourselves, all whilst acknowledging the good we have received from those who have gone before us. In these areas of oppression and intentional inequality, overall and gender-based, and also toward Gaia...which are nearly everything in some ways...we will go where the earlier masters have not gone. And where some of today's masters are admitting we must go in future.

Along with and very much a part of working on the self, addressing these things in our daily lives is humanity's core spiritual work. Both our cultures and our spiritual traditions have often simply served to reinforce and perpetuate these core divisions. It's time to evolve, both ourselves and our traditions...and we will need to be the ones to do it. No one else will do it for us.

We will be our own masters, if we become worthy of the journey we have set out to walk. And we will walk alongside them...as Gem noted...discussing just how we are bridging the chasms and filling the integrity gaps of humanity's history to date.

Peace & blessings
7L

[blossomingtree]

Thank you for an ever thoughtful post, 7L

1. My words are assuming mastery and the standard I personally utilize is knowers and bearers of Ultimate Truth/God and divine realization and actualization in and through one's being and life. Perhaps it is the term you use - transcendentals. I like that term by the way, although I have not heard it.
2. I am not familiar with such Gnostics believing that men are superior or not caring about the environment. As they know intimately All is One, and God is in All, and furthermore, that the true being is not in the form, but in the essence/spirit, how could there be such differentiation? I suspect you are looking at some historical examples of groups or traditions, and I go back to my words "assuming mastery". I personally filter quite quickly through one's written words and understandings whether a teacher is realized or not - and again the examples remain: Longchenpa, Buddha, Sri Nisargadatta, Sri Ramana Maharsi, Meister Eckhart, Rumi, Hafiz and the like. I also do not conflate these with their systems of belonging e.g. Eckhart with the modern day Church
I'm surprised that you mention the male dominance in religions, but perhaps because I have never focused on the systems, only on the teachings of the Self-Actualized. However, again how can one who sees through form to Essence believe that men are superior? That is perhaps a contextual and organizational bias of mankind (ego) that you refer to and we must differentiate in this case between organization, ego, and the beneficence and truth of true Masters.
3. There is never any doubt under any circumstances, to my way of seeing, that one does not follow anyone blindly and that respect and guidance does not mean that one is somehow lesser or inferior. An example I use often is martial arts, if you are learning, would you not go to and accept a teacher as more experienced - in fact the teacher (if they are true) is doing nothing more than helping the student reach their maximum potential, and in the case of spirituality, see past the world and workings of ego. Also, as per my experience, many such teachers have siddhis that are not important per se but can boost the unfolding of true nature. But again, there is never any doubt as to not trusting blindly - nor is there a need to excessively fear if one has the good fortune to come across the true ones.
4. Very much agree with you it is that each individual that needs to do the work and it is in every hope and intention that each person realizes the innate Truths and Love of humankind and All - which to my mind is mastery of spiritual truths and often includes a degree of Gnosis. There is no contradiction whatsoever, in my mind, of this and having the support of genuine Masters - of which history and the present show us there are.

Thanks for the discussion.

BT

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Thank you for an ever thoughtful post, 7L

1. My words are assuming mastery and the standard I personally utilize is knowers and bearers of Ultimate Truth/God and divine realization and actualization in and through one's being and life. Perhaps it is the term you use - transcendentals. I like that term by the way, although I have not heard it.
2. I am not familiar with such Gnostics believing that men are superior or not caring about the environment. As they know intimately All is One, and God is in All, and furthermore, that the true being is not in the form, but in the essence/spirit, how could there be such differentiation? I suspect you are looking at some historical examples of groups or traditions, and I go back to my words "assuming mastery". I personally filter quite quickly through one's written words and understandings whether a teacher is realized or not - and again the examples remain: Longchenpa, Buddha, Sri Nisargadatta, Sri Ramana Maharsi, Meister Eckhart, Rumi, Hafiz and the like. I also do not conflate these with their systems of belonging e.g. Eckhart with the modern day Church
I'm surprised that you mention the male dominance in religions, but perhaps because I have never focused on the systems, only on the teachings of the Self-Actualized. However, again how can one who sees through form to Essence believe that men are superior? That is perhaps a contextual and organizational bias of mankind (ego) that you refer to and we must differentiate in this case between organization, ego, and the beneficence and truth of true Masters.
3. There is never any doubt under any circumstances, to my way of seeing, that one does not follow anyone blindly and that respect and guidance does not mean that one is somehow lesser or inferior. An example I use often is martial arts, if you are learning, would you not go to and accept a teacher as more experienced - in fact the teacher (if they are true) is doing nothing more than helping the student reach their maximum potential, and in the case of spirituality, see past the world and workings of ego. Also, as per my experience, many such teachers have siddhis that are not important per se but can boost the unfolding of true nature. But again, there is never any doubt as to not trusting blindly - nor is there a need to excessively fear if one has the good fortune to come across the true ones.
4. Very much agree with you it is that each individual that needs to do the work and it is in every hope and intention that each person realizes the innate Truths and Love of humankind and All - which to my mind is mastery of spiritual truths and often includes a degree of Gnosis. There is no contradiction whatsoever, in my mind, of this and having the support of genuine Masters - of which history and the present show us there are.

Thanks for the discussion.

BT

BT - I very much appreciate your response and your sincere dedication and appreciation of the received traditions and masters such as those noted. I also generally appreciate your thoughtful responses, in general, on most threads

In that most respectful and frank line of response, I will further comment just a bit, not too much, since I feel I've already laid out my concerns, which are appropo to humanity at large, including our best and brightest.

Yes, this still includes nearly all our masters and certainly all of our received traditions, though of course in the cases of the best and most faithfully received insights and the most realised masters, they will have many compensatory aspects where their offerings shine brightly and have guided many further along their paths -- alongside the oversights and integrity gaps which apply universally to humanity at large, or certain have done to date.

1. The transcendentals are at higher levels of consciousness and unlike us, incarnation is not a necessary, regular, or foundational part of their being. Thus, whilst not exactly "fair" to look to them to model, yet in many ways, it is fair IMO because we too need to aspire to Oneness and to feel the burn, the flame of that desire, that love, which is holy and pure and which is not tainted by ego or lust. That is their norm.

Humanity can certainly strive to attain their level and purity or strength of consciousness, and I believe that is the fruit of our eventual realisation. But no human or once-human master is at that level, to my knowledge, and when we do attain it, we will have mastered transcending the residual filters that most still have, even masters.

2. When I say human society historically, I mean East, West, and everything in between. Historically means at least the last several thousand years of recorded history. And when I speak of spiritual traditions, I mean East and West. No received spiritual tradition and no known major culture over the last several thousand years anywhere in the world has been immune from the biases and prejudices of society.

Regarding class/ethnicity (typically mutually causal and overlapping if multiple cultures or ethnicities in any one place) and certainly regarding gender. No major spiritual tradition has been immune to gender bias and clearly favouring men, aligned with cultural norms of the day, and the self-actualised have not been universally immune to these oversights or biases. The reality is that whilst actualised to a (perhaps far) greater degree than many others of their day, they were still only human.

To reference Swami Chi (our Swami Chi ;) ), each of them had a piece of the truth, but not the entirety of the truth. That is also what I am saying...it is partial, and specifically, it is known to be partial IMO because of the underlying biases to which they either ascribed, allowed, denied, or simply failed to see...all perfectly human and understandable.

There is no other way to slice it IMO and get around this point. Although I am not a christian, my experience with the consciousness of several of these masters puts Jesus and mystics closer to the unfiltered reality. However, very few of even those mystics are without residual filters once they engage with the rest of humanity and human consciousness. Again, not bad...simply partial truths due to these frankly rather enormous gaps in the spiritual integrity of humanity to date. Including most masters but to lesser degrees, perhaps far lesser, in all fairness.

I'm just saying, the teachings are not complete and are not perfected. Just like humanity. Just like humanity's human masters. And IMO we are better served taking the good, acknowledging the gaps wherever they lay, and getting to the work at hand :)

3. I agree with the caveats stated in #2. For example, a realised woman has rarely been given opportunity to teach, to become a part of the received wisdom. Rare exceptions abound...there are some western mystics (nuns usually) and same in the East. But generally a few here & there does not a tradition make, nor a major contribution make. Nor would all but the most realised, historically...someone like Jesus...even see the higher realisation and perfections (as you noted) in the lay woman, particularly the outcast lay women, etc. What I'm saying is at a certain point in your realisation and in your mainstream life journey (having kids, etc), you may very well have much to teach your teacher or any of the historic masters. But he and they will need to be ideally where Jesus is at, in order to deeply apprehend this wisdom and this reality.

I've said before that Jesus was more than 2000 yrs ahead of his time with regard to equality and parity of the manifest sort...and still is today. He was integrated and thus integral to humanity. He was closing the gap with his simple, direct, manifest word and deed. He was living the law in its core truth. Beyond that, though, he was not weighed down by most of the residual filters that humanity have. By way of comparison against the transcendentals. That is a truly elevated master IMO. And we've had very, very few by these measures. Though we've certainly received wisdom and deep truths from many.

I'm not knocking what works for you or others, not at all. It a system or tradition works for you, that's a beautiful thing and my heart is gratified. I'm saying it's not enough for everyone, however.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

BT - I very much appreciate your response and your sincere dedication and appreciation of the received traditions and masters such as those noted. I also generally appreciate your thoughtful responses, in general, on most threads

In that most respectful and frank line of response, I will further comment just a bit, not too much, since I feel I've already laid out my concerns, which are appropo to humanity at large, including our best and brightest.

Yes, this still includes nearly all our masters and certainly all of our received traditions, though of course in the cases of the best and most faithfully received insights and the most realised masters, they will have many compensatory aspects where their offerings shine brightly and have guided many further along their paths -- alongside the oversights and integrity gaps which apply universally to humanity at large, or certain have done to date.

1. The transcendentals are at higher levels of consciousness and unlike us, incarnation is not a necessary, regular, or foundational part of their being. Thus, whilst not exactly "fair" to look to them to model, yet in many ways, it is fair IMO because we too need to aspire to Oneness and to feel the burn, the flame of that desire, that love, which is holy and pure and which is not tainted by ego or lust. That is their norm.

Humanity can certainly strive to attain their level and purity or strength of consciousness, and I believe that is the fruit of our eventual realisation. But no human or once-human master is at that level, to my knowledge, and when we do attain it, we will have mastered transcending the residual filters that most still have, even masters.

2. When I say human society historically, I mean East, West, and everything in between. Historically means at least the last several thousand years of recorded history. And when I speak of spiritual traditions, I mean East and West. No received spiritual tradition and no known major culture over the last several thousand years anywhere in the world has been immune from the biases and prejudices of society.

Regarding class/ethnicity (typically mutually causal and overlapping if multiple cultures or ethnicities in any one place) and certainly regarding gender. No major spiritual tradition has been immune to gender bias and clearly favouring men, aligned with cultural norms of the day, and the self-actualised have not been universally immune to these oversights or biases. The reality is that whilst actualised to a (perhaps far) greater degree than many others of their day, they were still only human.

To reference Swami Chi (our Swami Chi ;) ), each of them had a piece of the truth, but not the entirety of the truth. That is also what I am saying...it is partial, and specifically, it is known to be partial IMO because of the underlying biases to which they either ascribed, allowed, denied, or simply failed to see...all perfectly human and understandable.

There is no other way to slice it IMO and get around this point. Although I am not a christian, my experience with the consciousness of several of these masters puts Jesus and mystics closer to the unfiltered reality. However, very few of even those mystics are without residual filters once they engage with the rest of humanity and human consciousness. Again, not bad...simply partial truths due to these frankly rather enormous gaps in the spiritual integrity of humanity to date. Including most masters but to lesser degrees, perhaps far lesser, in all fairness.

I'm just saying, the teachings are not complete and are not perfected. Just like humanity. Just like humanity's human masters. And IMO we are better served taking the good, acknowledging the gaps wherever they lay, and getting to the work at hand :)

3. I agree with the caveats stated in #2. For example, a realised woman has rarely been given opportunity to teach, to become a part of the received wisdom. Rare exceptions abound...there are some western mystics (nuns usually) and same in the East. But generally a few here & there does not a tradition make, nor a major contribution make. Nor would all but the most realised, historically...someone like Jesus...even see the higher realisation and perfections (as you noted) in the lay woman, particularly the outcast lay women, etc. What I'm saying is at a certain point in your realisation and in your mainstream life journey (having kids, etc), you may very well have much to teach your teacher or any of the historic masters. But he and they will need to be ideally where Jesus is at, in order to deeply apprehend this wisdom and this reality.

I've said before that Jesus was more than 2000 yrs ahead of his time with regard to equality and parity of the manifest sort...and still is today. He was integrated and thus integral to humanity. He was closing the gap with his simple, direct, manifest word and deed. He was living the law in its core truth. Beyond that, though, he was not weighed down by most of the residual filters that humanity have. By way of comparison against the transcendentals. That is a truly elevated master IMO. And we've had very, very few by these measures. Though we've certainly received wisdom and deep truths from many.

I'm not knocking what works for you or others, not at all. It a system or tradition works for you, that's a beautiful thing and my heart is gratified. I'm saying it's not enough for everyone, however.

Peace & blessings
7L

I think the basic problem is making a special category for masters as compared to the rest of us. Isn't that just a social construct loaded with all sorts of role play and behavioural expectations? Does it not also set a human figure in place for one to attempt to emulate in view of their own deficiency? And in that process of comparing lesser to greater, and consequent emulation, do not such social issues that you mention arise?