You have hit the nail right on it's head.
You see, this is just an extension of the old Semitic religion's
dogma......
Islam can do no wrong.
The Koran can do no wrong.
The Prophet can do no wrong.
Ayatholla Khomeni can do no wrong.
The Bible can do no wrong.
Jesus can do no wrong.
The Pope can do no wrong.
The Catholic church can do no wrong.
Israel can do no wrong..!!!!! etc etc etc
TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 06:59:55 -0000
Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
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?
