You label it dogma and with the word, the label somhow feel you have already proven your point and it is dismissed, negated, and diminished. Your argument, your point is your bias. It of course is not a new TM concept that the enlighted are acting from the laws of nature and therefore acting without sin, but applicable to any path that will take you to unity.
You try to diminish all paths. It has been said it takes a thief to catch a thief. Maybe you should wait until you are a thief to properly judge. Steve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It seems to me, watching the tales of Neil > Patterson and Andy Rhymer appear again (not to > mention the casual aside to Sai Baba, a Class-A > pedophile in his own right), together with the > ongoing exercises in solipsism that grace our > FFL screens, that maybe it's time to examine a > fundamental piece of TM dogma, the one that I > personally think is most "off," and one of the > prime sources of all of these sad stories. > > It's not just a TM phenomenon, of course. This > dogma mouldie oldie permeates many of the trad- > itions of the East and their New Age offshoots. > I've seen it be equally destructive in all of > them, as have many other people, and yet no one > ever seems to speak up about the dogma itself. > > The dogma in question is that the enlightened > are perfectly in accord with the "laws of nature," > and thus can do no wrong. Their actions are *by > definition* "life-supporting." > > Think about the implications of accepting this > dogma without question. It means that there is an > "end point" to having to be concerned that one's > own actions are right or wrong, a point at which > one no longer has to even *think* about whether > what they do or say is "right" or "life-supporting." > > That's for lesser beings, the ones who haven't > "graduated" to enlightened states of mind the > way that they have. Once one is enlightened, they > are so "in tune" with the "laws of nature" that > they *never again* have to be concerned with their > own actions and the effects of them. Those actions > are *by definition* correct, and life-supporting. > > Once this piece of dogma sets its hooks in seekers, > they seem willing to overlook ANYTHING in the people > they consider enlightened. They can form the most > amazing rationalizations for why the teacher they > revere is "really" doing the right thing when he or > she does things they would organize a mob to combat > if other people did them. We've seen people on this > forum excuse lying, illegal acts, extortion and > worse when they were done by people they believe > to be enlightened. And we've seen those who claim > to be enlightened excuse their *own* actions with > equal certainty. They don't even have to *listen* > to feedback from others that these actions might be > less than perfect, because they "know" that those > actions cannot possibly be imperfect. They have > subjective experiences that convince them that they > are enlightened, and *by definition* the enlightened > can do no wrong, so all these critics MUST *by def- > inition* be incorrect. Since they are enlightened > (or believe that they are), *anything* they do is > *by definition* right. > > I think the problem is in the dogma. I think it's > about time that this particular "the enlightened are > perfect and no longer have to worry about whether > their actions are appropriate or not" piece of dogma > was flushed down the toilet forever. > > As far as I can tell (and as many traditions that I > respect believe and teach), one NEVER achieves an > "end point" in their self discovery where they no > longer have to be concerned with whether their actions > are correct or not. If anything, once they take upon > themselves the mantle of "I'm enlightened," they have > to be *more* watchful of their own words and actions, > and *more* aware of their possible repercussions. > > I'm a big fan of "Before enlightenment, chop wood and > carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry > water." I don't believe that *anything* changes for > the enlightened being, other than the realization of > what had always already been present anyway. The act > of chopping wood after enlightenment requires the same > care in not chopping off one's own (or someone else's) > fingers as it did before enlightenment. > > I guess that I'm proposing that we put this *assumption* > that the actions of the enlightened are "different" -- > and should be judged differently -- on the table for > discussion here on Fairfield Life. > > Who here still believes that enlightenment confers > perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or > who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here > believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by > definition* "in accord with the laws of nature" and > thus are *always* "life supporting?" > > And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- > serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that > deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? >
