Some people spend a lot of time studying the teachings of others. They decide that what they've come across has real meaning for them, perhaps having already rejected many others before this. But in the same way that religion is a stepping stone to something else, or should be, so is any teaching. So to become too attached to the ideas of someone else, may end up keeping you where you are rather than allowing you to go somewhere else. I get the feeling that studying anything to such a degree is a very academic endeavour. Much interpreting, analyzing, accepting/discarding, may go on. Ultimately, there is a great deal of investment in time and effort in knowing something well. Eventually, you may even become a teacher of the teaching yourself, once you believe your understanding of it is sufficient, and there will be those who are affected by it as they come across you and consider what you have to say. I have never felt like attaching myself to any one teaching. As if its very ideas are not really a teaching at all, more like a sign post to enable me to walk my own path more easily. It was never to be taken as the 'thing that I must know', in the same way one might argue that those who choose a religion do. Instead, like all good stepping stones, the teaching is only meant to push you forward. I must ultimately do it myself, if I want to walk my own path correctly. Which is why I find those offering to teach something that they say they have studied for many years somewhat suspicious. Not that someone cannot have real understanding of the teachings they have studied, but how much the ego may have become involved in the process. It could be seen as quite an egoic activity to reveal yourself a master of something, or even think of yourself that way. I'm not certain about any of this of course, it just seems like the idea of DIY cannot take on board any one teaching exclusively. It feels more like finding a bus station full of buses, knowing you can go anywhere, but remaining in the station indefinitely, rather than getting on one. Just a thought.
That really hit the spot. Who wants to learn the int racy of someone else s ideas. I want the sum of the basic and what that means. To over analyze and to become skilled at counter argument is a part of a system that is institutionalized elite thinking that has peaked.
The main character of the book literally drove himself crazy trying to master philosophy by systematically going through many of the great philosopher's teachings in order to find the one that was a preconceived extension of his own thoughts. He wasn't trying some diy approach but was convinced he was following in the footsteps of other great minds that had "mastered" philosophy and by doing so he would be able to "master" philosophy by following in their footsteps. He became a teacher of philosophy before he had his break down. He wasn't trying to walk his own path, he was very egoic in his endeavors and couldn't get past trying to reach the top of the maintain as he put it. Eventually, as he puts it, he realizes it's the journey up the mountain that is important, that the next step you take is just as important as the one you take to reach the top. I dunno, I kinda saw some parallels when I read the post and it made me think of that book.
To give up one's path to follow a teaching, which I feel is what happens when one does so, may be just what is needed to eventually bring you back to it more clearly. Although I do question the idea of following a teaching rather than just considering it. When does considering become following? Perhaps you have to feel ready to defend it for that to be so. I think there are many teachings, and many teachers. What makes one work for one person over another is obviously going to be subjective, and probably very relevant to where I am at that particular moment. I rarely read anything now (perhaps it shows) and haven't done so for a long time. I avoid filling my head with things that would need to be discarded at some point. I suppose it's the same reason I rarely listen to the news. It's kind of like someone suddenly shouting that there's something going on. I could allow the idea of what that is to become part of my reality by needing to know what it is, or accept that it only exists for me if I let it. In my reality there isn't a need to always know something just because it's there. And so I carry on as if it isn't. Somehow, what I need to know I still know, and what I don't I'm happy to leave to everyone else to. Does this make sense?
Very well said, completely agree. Someone cannot have real understanding of the teachings if his ego is in the way. His ego will form a wall preventing him from truly understanding the teachings. Wonderful quote, applause
Certainly. I've had the habit of taking others' words as scripture, especially people I look up to and respect. However, I also noticed after a while that no matter how much I absorbed these words would not and could not be a substitute for any amount of action on my part. It took me some years of getting nowhere to realize I had to act to get somewhere. When defending their right to their teachings becomes defending their teaching. I don't know, good question. I also see teaching that doesn't come in the form of a lesson but in the form of expression. What is said isn't said for you but for them. What is read isn't understood as what they believe but how you see what you read in relation to your own viewpoint. It's interesting to look at what people say from a creative standpoint sometimes. It can be something, not a guiding light, that is assimilated in the journey of you. News I'm not sure offers any creative insight. Or maybe it's that I'm still forming my ideas, but hopefully you get my point. This makes me think of Facebook and why it bores me so. I think it does. I'm not sure if I do though.