Rick wrote:
I don't think, as I once did, that "everything he says must be true
because he's enlightened." It also raises interesting questions
regarding the correlation of ethics and higher states of
consciousness. Are they as tightly correlated as Maharishi said they
were? Apparently not. Is there any absolute value to ethical
standards or are they just a matter of culture and personal
preference?
Bronte writes:
Surely ethics is not just a matter of "personal preference." The
concept of morality has to do with how individual action affects the
whole. What's right can't just be a matter of "what I feel like
doing." The whole -- others -- have to be considered. It's also not
just a matter of culture. In the Filipano culture, it's considered
fine if a man lies to his mate, even cheats on her. Does that make it
all right, because the culture accepts it? In ancient civilizations,
human sacrifice was popular. Does that mean it was ethical?
I wouldn't say there are "absolute standards" to ethics, though,
either -- the only alternative to "a matter of personal preference"
that you present above. I believe in "situation ethics," defining
what's right to do in the moment based on the unique parameters of
the situation. But the choice has to be made in light of the larger
perspective, not just the personal one.
Neither, though, should personal need be sacrificed on the altar of
of cultural prejudice: situations like Iran, where women's rights are
unheard of, or marriages where people stay with a partner knowing
it's for neither one's highest good. The answer of what's right or
wrong should come from the place in the heart where the ego unites
with the Infinite, where both are present together, and the ego is in
its most expanded state. Then personal desire is fairly heard in the
courtroom of the eternal, and a just decision gets rendered that
benefits all.
Your paragraph above is too reminiscent of the excuses "the
enlightened" give for their hurtful behaviors: they are above the
considerations of good and evil. No one ever is. This is more neo-
advaitan-type thinking, that blurs the edges of responsibility. There
is always a right, or best, action in a situation. There are always
choices that lead to less-than-a-great outcome, or to suffering.
To take the position that higher states of consciousness and ethics
are not correlated opens the door to people doing whatever they darn
well please as long as they feel "cosmic" enough to justify any
actions. It also means enlightenment is just a feel-good, selfish
thing, not something that benefits the whole. But true enlightenment
can't be like that. It must be a state where the individual ego,
rather than being subsumed by the infinite, is transformed into
perfection. Hurtful, destructive traits are gone. The person is a
saint, the peak of human evolution.
If one's definition of enlightenment does not include this (as is the
case in the Wednesday Night Satsang's collective "guruship," for
instance), enlightenment is nothing more than spiritual masturbation.
Its own self-centered little drama, where the whole universe is mood-
made to be part of itself but where people can be treated like shit.
You can't divorce character from genuine higher consciousness.
Because the Infinite, which we're one with in those states, is a
field of love and grace, not selfishness or hurtfulness. Character
has to be perfect when the individual spirit is established in That.
That's the place where right decisions come from, solutions which
provide the greatest good for all. People who admit character flaws
but tell us they are enlightened are false teachers. They're the pied
pipers leading most of the New Age movement right into the side of
the mountain.
