--- 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: > > > > > > > > --- 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? > > > > Both. In the Age of Enlightenment enlightened souls will be > considered "normal". He thus set a new standard.
In the forthcoming full sunshine of the Age of Enlightenment to be "Blazing with Brahman" will be considered normal human status.
