--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > (Comments below.) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2011, at 2:03 PM, feste37 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, having said that, Mahesh did admire some > > > > > > > of the most evil people. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a classical and easy mistake to make. > > > > > > Maharishi did not admire these dictators, he lifted them up > > > > > > so they could leave office without any loss of lives. The > > > > > > "Shah", Marcos, Haile Selassie, Peron - the list is long. > > > > > > > > > > Nabs, you know, if we assume MMY was fully > > > > > enlightened, we don't have to deny that he admired > > > > > those dictators. It's fully consistent with his > > > > > teaching to assume that Nature caused him to admire > > > > > them, that Nature "knew" his lifting them up would > > > > > result in their leaving office with little or no > > > > > violence. > > > > > > > > > > IOW, MMY didn't have to know what he was doing; he > > > > > didn't have to foresee the effects of his actions. > > > > > Nature "knew," and he was just following Nature's > > > > > dictates. > > > > > > > > > > Or to put it another way, the gunas don't just > > > > > control action in the world; they also control > > > > > action inside our heads, what our brain's synapses > > > > > do. > > > > > > > > Actually, I agree with you, Judy. Well put. > > > > > > > > It also means I don't need to agree with or follow the > > > > actions and ideas of someone else who is enlightened. > > > > The gunas may be acting on the brain of the enlightened > > > > person and on my brain, too, and we would come to > > > > different conclusions. > > > > > > Yes, exactly! > > > > > > > I might think their support of someone like Mugabe is > > > > ridiculous, and that is just perfect for me to feel > > > > that way. It is the only way someone not enlightened > > > > can act and be honest with themselves. Just do what > > > > you think is right. Not follow the ideas of any person > > > > with whom you don't honestly agree. And not bend into > > > > all sorts of contortions trying to find a way to make > > > > it all make sense. So if MMY adored Mugabe, well, > > > > that feeling is right for him. The gunas in the > > > > wisdom of the cosmos made MMY adore him for some > > > > ultimate reason that I have no clue about. But my > > > > dislike is equally valid. So, just because MMY liked > > > > or disliked someone means........not much at all, > > > > really, I guess. His work was in the meditation and > > > > the darshan. > > > > > > Total agreement. > > > > > > > > That's one way of looking at it, anyway. I think it > > > > > makes more sense than to argue that he had ulterior > > > > > motives and was engaging in complicated plotting to > > > > > bring about unexpectedly desirable results. He would > > > > > have been just as surprised as anybody else at what > > > > > Nature had wrought through him. > > > > I also agree with this line of thought. Of course IF someone > > is enlightened, then, quite likely his mistakes will > > actually effect the good. > > But "good" from Nature's "perspective," not necessarily > from ours. Sometimes we can see the good effects of > what at first appeared to be mistakes, sometimes we can't. > > > Of course this isn't a proof that somebody IS enlightened. > > > > The whole argument is a variation of the one that since the > > gunas create everything, everything is just perfect as it > > is - you know this free will/determination argument. > > Yup. And the corollary, which Lawson attributed to MMY > awhile back. Q: Maharishi, if everything is perfect just > as it is, why are we working so hard to change things? > A: That too is perfect just as it is. > > > As in this case Maharishi wouldn't even know what is > > good, but would invariably do it - ultimately and > > involuntary. > > > > I am actually sure that Maharishi knew this - it's part > > of Indian philosophy, there are stories about this, even > > though I can't think of one right now. > > > > It's debatable though, if this is *always* the case, just > > think of the Judith book, how would you interpret it in > > the same light? > > You could argue that it drives home the very point we're > agreeing about, liberating us from the notion that > enlightenment means perfect behavior by human standards. > That gives us permission, as wayback suggested, to > strongly disapprove of his behavior without assuming it > means he wasn't enlightened.
Well, it's a good way to look at it at least. And a good conclusion to make. > > It's all an aspect of what I was talking about earlier, > that when you take any authentic teaching about Unity as > far as it will go, it just sort of dissolves in paradox > and infinite regress, and there you are walking the > tightrope without a net, just as you were before you ever > heard about enlightenment. Riiight. And it needs courage to face it, from either side I mean. It's easy to point your finger and say, this is a justification of everything, a mere sophistry, as Turq says, as it is just as easy to dismiss it as Nabby does and say, well he knew it all along, he intentionally did it that way, or simply deny such acts, like the Judith book. Personally I don't like if people cannot change viewpoints. The mind has to be fluid IMO. IOW, you can't be a True Believer, because you know that it all, ALL can be wrong, and I agree, that you have to make your own judgements, go by your own sense of what is right and wrong, IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION, because your life situation may vary, and your relationship to a guru may vary. In most cases, this argument, is a retrospect argument, a retrospect view on things, as I see it. The bottom-line is, go by what you think is right, do what corresponds to your ethical standard, but keep your mind fluid at the same time. > In this context, the big advantage of being enlightened > is that the absence of a net no longer freaks you out. >
