Excellent discussion, kudos to all contributors for covering this topic at all angles, exposing the many facets of this fascinating subject. I'll let the philosophers sort out the possible inherent conflicts and paradoxes in this; and simply judge everybody on the same level playing field as to the superficial appearances and actions. imo - the wrong course of action would be to separate actors in the cosmic drama into 2 sets: E'd and unE'ed; for a number of reasons already mentioned, notwithstanding the question of evidence. http://www.fantasygallery.net/bohbot/art_0_wolfmoon.html ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfreak@...> wrote: > > Very, very well said Wayback. I hear you. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfreak@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Which brings me back to the need (for me anyway) to rely on > > > > the brain I have to judge whether or not something is right > > > > or wrong or some shade in between. > > > > . . . > > > > For many years around MMY, I interpreted any action of his > > > > whether outwardly "wrong" or inconsiderate or whatever, as > > > > perfect. If MMY got angry at someone, it was only for that > > > > persons' good. If MMY got sick, it was because he was taking > > > > on the karma of someone....if he treated someone with cruelty ( > > > > as he did when he literally spat water given to him by one > > > > of the staff women back in her face) it was surely a "lesson' > > > > she should be thankful for. > > > > > > > > Bit by bit though, I allowed myself to see his actions as > > > > being nothing more than they appeared to be on the surface. > > > > If he was angry, it could well be he was in a bad mood. If > > > > he got sick, it might be from picking up a virus like anyone > > > > else. If he was rude and cruel to someone, it might be because > > > > he was capable of rudeness and cruelty. > > > > > > > > For me, trusting my own view of reality...my own interpretation > > > > based on the sum total of my experience and knowledge up to > > > > that point in my life, has proven to be much more rewarding > > > > for me than relying on or counting on any kind of magical > > > > thinking. > > > > > > > > YMMV of course. > > > > > > Amen. Me, I've got to cry bullshit at this latest attempt to > > > give MMY a free ride and claim he never made any mistakes. > > > I think it's pure sophistry, and an attempt to project > > > theory or dogma onto a universe that has nothing to do > > > with the theories and dogma. Worse, it's trying to defend > > > a guru by waving dogma *sold to the defenders by the very > > > guru they feel that they have to compulsively defend*. > > > > > > The idea being presented seems to be that MMY never made > > > any mistakes because he never did anything, period. He, > > > being all enlightened and all, was a "non-doer." He had > > > no choice but to do what he was inwardly commanded to do > > > by Big Daddy In The Sky. Now I know that this is not the > > > term originally used by those promoting this idea -- they > > > would have you believe that they're talking about the > > > "three gunas" doing all the doing, or "Nature" (a cheap > > > euphemism for God) doing all the doing, but I prefer to > > > call a spade a spade and say that their theory is that > > > everything is really "done" by Big Daddy In The Sky. And > > > that Big Daddy "does" everything Perfectly. > > > > > > That's one component of the dogma being bought into here. > > > The other is that the "enlightened" are somehow Big Daddy's > > > cosmic helpers in all of this Perfection. They have no > > > choice but to "do" as they're told to do, being all enlight- > > > ened and all, so their actions are by definition as Perfect > > > as Big Daddy Himself's actions. Even if it appears from > > > our limited point of view that they made mistakes, they > > > never did because there ARE no mistakes; everything is > > > Perfect, and working in accordance with Big Daddy's grand > > > plan exactly the way it should. > > > > > > Excuse me? > > > > > > Perfect? Have you fuckin' *looked around* lately? Are you > > > telling me that you look at the universe and honestly see > > > it as *Perfect*? Famine, pestilence and war are Perfect? > > > Floods, earthquakes and other disasters hurled at planet > > > Earth on a regular basis by Big Daddy In The Sky are > > > Perfect? The Holocaust was Perfect? Slavery was Perfect? > > > Global climate change is Perfect? Get real. > > > > > > It sounds to me more like you're just spouting dogma sold > > > to you by some guru *as if it were true*, and claiming that > > > a universe *your own perceptions tell you is not Perfect* > > > really is, just because the guru said it is. Similarly, it > > > sounds to me that you're buying without question the "not > > > the doer" bullshit and the "the enlightened are Perfect" > > > dogma sold to you by the same source, coincidentally the > > > same guru you are so compulsively trying to claim never > > > made any mistakes, and thus has no responsibility for them. > > > Convenient. > > > > > > Bottom line is that it's perfectly fine with me if you want > > > to go around believing in fairy tales about Big Daddy In > > > The Sky and how Perfect the universe he "does" everything > > > in is, while you and his enlightened helpers act as his > > > mere puppets and cheerleaders. But at least be consistent > > > in your delusional beliefs. If you are honestly trying to > > > claim that the universe is Perfect, THEN STOP YOUR > > > BITCHING. Retract everything you've said in the past > > > on Fairfield Life about an action or a person that you > > > considered "wrong." How could it or they possibly be "wrong" > > > if now you're saying that everything is Perfect? > > > > > > > No, things stink. They do. Just look at my obsession, global warming. A > > nightmare. Sigh. > > > > I just got in from work and it looks like lots of discussion happened. > > For me, this whole guna thing means I don't feel guilty when disagreeing > > with a guru. Gurus have a personality and so do I. Mine might be more > > likable or smarter or meaner - whatever- but we each have our own. The way > > I take all this is that if a guru has sex with students, steals money, is > > mean - I can easily be angry without wondering if perhaps I am missing some > > ultimate cosmic goodness in their nasty behavior. I tried that for some > > time while in the TMO. I did a little of that twisting and turning to make > > it all fit when I did not like what MMY did. The whole gunas thing for me, > > means there is no reason to assume that a guru's actions are better than > > mine. The gunas somehow put us all on equal footing, since they make all > > of us do all of it anyway. If you buy into the whole guna idea (I know you > > don't any longer, I am 50-50 on it), then gurus are people whose > > personalities and behaviors are just as subject to human glory and failure > > as the rest of us. Hold each person accountable? Yes. > > > > At the same time, it all does just happen. I know this, and I know you > > know this too. You have been around and had those experiences. And saying > > that this is a cult or spiritual view of things is not really accurate. > > Science too is finding that the brain is doing very fast data collection so > > it feels seamless and personal and like a deciding I is present, when in > > fact it is not. > > > > So things happen without our involvement in a sense, without really making > > choices, and yet we still have to hold each other responsible cause we live > > here and it feels as if we are creators of our thoughts. We put people in > > jail who are a threat to the rest of us, we yell and scream when we > > disagree with someone, we try to be kind, we protest when a guru is > > dishonest. We avoid people we don't like and hang with those we do. We make > > our very personal choices, join a cult, disengage. > > > > I think I once assumed (not so much the last several years) that gurus knew > > everything and could predict things and always automatically did what was > > best for nature and all things. I am losing that view - I think we are all > > equal on the level on which we all live (call it the Relative for old > > time's sake? that level of the gunas). When it comes to having more, like > > Blazing Brahman or Enlightenment, I just don't think it has much at all to > > do with regular life - it does not seem to guarantee good behavior that is > > for sure. I still want that, though, and will gladly take a meditation > > technique and some darshan if it helps me out. But I doubt seriously it > > will make me a greatly better human being. That is my responsibility - or > > the gunas:). > > >
