Original her approach to Reality!! It feels that she is full of life ! She talks about the Guru principle. Delightful ! Thank you so much for sharing this beautiful and big diamond to the world. :-)
I don't know. You could be right, but there are many teachers who make a living sharing their knowledge (something I consider completely valid & legitimate) who state clearly & often that no one needs them and everyone has access to the information themselves. I do expect teachers to teach empowerment even when they make a career of teaching. Thanks for the reply!
What she's saying there is that we have been conditioned to only flower in particular directions. It is very difficult to become realized, to expand consciousness without a teacher, without the support of others on the path who can support you and mirror back to you your essential nature. The human being who becomes realized, has a sudden enlightenment experience without having had a teacher is rare indeed. It's not an all the people all the time statement, but it does speak to realistic odds.
I don't think there is another side to her view, which I disagree with. She's saying that we need others in order to achieve the level of enlightenment she received when she met her friend because that is when she "flowered" and that humans can't achieve this without another human catalyst. It's simply not true. We can and do achieve great levels of enlightenment without the input of others. Do we learn from others? Of course! That's not what she was speaking of nor was I. Have a great week : )
Context shows she meant "human beings" as she said. Perhaps she believes that some were "divinely inspired" & passed their knowledge along to their fellow man, I don't know, but she meant it as she said it. You're supporting her view at least in part by saying that we can only know what is explained to us. I disagree completely. We can and do have insights that aren't taught to us by our fellow man. It's happened many times to humans. It's fine if you disagree though. : )
You're basically right . . . and she's basically wrong. Keep in mind, however, that her Ridhwan School is a money-making enterprise . . . and that she earns her living from it. So, conventionally speaking, we shouldn't expect her to say much that undermines the premise that such an institution is necessary . . .
"Until you are shown by something or someone you wont ever overstep that boundary. " I completely disagree, but like I said that's OK : ) Hope you have a lovely week!
Around 35:00 she describes what Husserl called the" Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction, or epoche'". For philosophers, it is controversial as to whether it is even possible to do. Just sayin'
Lovely interview! I disagree with what she says at 38:51 "Human beings don't know how to flower so we need to catch the nectar from someone else who knows how to flower." This idea is false and dis-empowering...it fosters dependance on others as your source for 'flowering'/enlightenment or state of being when nothing could be further from the truth in my experience and many others. Thanks for the upload!
All statements just approximations including this one: 'Show me a statement that can't be misunderstood and I will devote my life to it.' What one person needs to hear in any one moment; how he or she hears the words and what it means to them and what the implications may be can not be taken into consideration or completely covered by any general statements at another time and place. Time-place-people are infinite and indeterminate. Paradox can help because it can leave us in a question. Consider this paradox: We can not be told anything we don't already know and, equally well, we don't know anything until we are told it. Can we see in some sense or in what sense that this paradox can leave us in the question rather than fixated in some statement in what we consider to be our experience? What is a new born before it is born? What does it need after it is born? Or more close to home: How about when we were in that form as a baby, what did we need? In one sense we already knew everything yet in another sense we knew nothing until we were told it even if we reacted against it and learned to recognize it was not true for us. Rumi: "The taste of the true is in the false like the taste of butter is in buttermilk". At any rate thanks be for words and people and the smell of feet.
The transcript of this interview is available to view here.
conscious.tv/text/115.htm
This lady is a magnificent teacher. The passion in her messages and teachings caused a breakthrough for me........
Original her approach to Reality!! It feels that she is full of life ! She talks about the Guru principle. Delightful ! Thank you so much for sharing this beautiful and big diamond to the world. :-)
Great interview and very alive ,thank you all.
I don't know. You could be right, but there are many teachers who make a living sharing their knowledge (something I consider completely valid & legitimate) who state clearly & often that no one needs them and everyone has access to the information themselves. I do expect teachers to teach empowerment even when they make a career of teaching.
Thanks for the reply!
What she's saying there is that we have been conditioned to only flower in particular directions. It is very difficult to become realized, to expand consciousness without a teacher, without the support of others on the path who can support you and mirror back to you your essential nature. The human being who becomes realized, has a sudden enlightenment experience without having had a teacher is rare indeed. It's not an all the people all the time statement, but it does speak to realistic odds.
I'd like to speak to the manager
in reply to Jim Watson
she holds a (crystal) vajra or dorje, often used in Asian traditions, symbolizing a bold, firm, indestructible power.
I would like to have some specific, practical, situations wherein this dynamism operates.
I don't think there is another side to her view, which I disagree with. She's saying that we need others in order to achieve the level of enlightenment she received when she met her friend because that is when she "flowered" and that humans can't achieve this without another human catalyst. It's simply not true. We can and do achieve great levels of enlightenment without the input of others. Do we learn from others? Of course! That's not what she was speaking of nor was I. Have a great week : )
What is she holding in her hand?
Context shows she meant "human beings" as she said. Perhaps she believes that some were "divinely inspired" & passed their knowledge along to their fellow man, I don't know, but she meant it as she said it. You're supporting her view at least in part by saying that we can only know what is explained to us. I disagree completely. We can and do have insights that aren't taught to us by our fellow man. It's happened many times to humans. It's fine if you disagree though. : )
You're basically right . . . and she's basically wrong.
Keep in mind, however, that her Ridhwan School is a money-making enterprise . . . and that she earns her living from it.
So, conventionally speaking, we shouldn't expect her to say much that undermines the premise that such an institution is necessary . . .
"Until you are shown by something or someone you wont ever overstep that boundary. "
I completely disagree, but like I said that's OK : )
Hope you have a lovely week!
Bright lady here!
Around 35:00 she describes what Husserl called the" Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction, or epoche'". For philosophers, it is controversial as to whether it is even possible to do. Just sayin'
beautiful
Lovely interview! I disagree with what she says at 38:51 "Human beings don't know how to flower so we need to catch the nectar from someone else who knows how to flower."
This idea is false and dis-empowering...it fosters dependance on others as your source for 'flowering'/enlightenment or state of being when nothing could be further from the truth in my experience and many others.
Thanks for the upload!
All statements just approximations including this one: 'Show me a statement that can't be misunderstood and I will devote my life to it.' What one person needs to hear in any one moment; how he or she hears the words and what it means to them and what the implications may be can not be taken into consideration or completely covered by any general statements at another time and place. Time-place-people are infinite and indeterminate. Paradox can help because it can leave us in a question. Consider this paradox: We can not be told anything we don't already know and, equally well, we don't know anything until we are told it. Can we see in some sense or in what sense that this paradox can leave us in the question rather than fixated in some statement in what we consider to be our experience? What is a new born before it is born? What does it need after it is born? Or more close to home: How about when we were in that form as a baby, what did we need? In one sense we already knew everything yet in another sense we knew nothing until we were told it even if we reacted against it and learned to recognize it was not true for us. Rumi: "The taste of the true is in the false like the taste of butter is in buttermilk". At any rate thanks be for words and people and the smell of feet.
She's so beautiful.
in reply to Greenrate,
there, my friend, you are basically wrong...