--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > perhaps after > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > said so!! > > > > > > > > > He did. > > > > > > MMY: "I'm a normal human being" > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > human > > > being" > > > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > > Nice to hear, it looks like Bevan didn't believe him! > > > How can you read such utter nonsense out of this ? The "hard rocks of > ignorance" I suppose. > Bevan was flabbagasterd about MMY's statement since we all looked to > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a > normal human being" > > Please get a checking.
Depends on how you define normal, most people would think normal to be the average Joe on the street. It seems in this context however MMY meant being enlightened is normal which is how HE would define normal. So which was it? Was MMY defining himself as a mere human (the context I was using) or an Enlightened Being?
