Just as a followup, and hopefully the "last word" on
the subject from my side, I want to try to clarify why
I got involved in the recent discussion here. It was
to point out that the whole thing was based on some-
thing assumed to be true, and that this assumption
is not to be assumed.
Here's how I would present Judy's position, expressed
in computer language-like pseudocode:
IF
A (the three gunas control all actions, and no one,
including Maharishi is the "doer" of any of these
actions, merely puppets carrying them out.)
THEN
B (Maharishi might have been consciously aware
that each of his actions was the "doing" of the
three gunas, and thus a willing participant in
those actions.)
OR
C (Maharishi might have been completely unaware
of the "true," inner, three gunas-directed nature
of his own actions, but did what he was "supposed
to do" anyway, because he was so enlightened and
all.)
THEREFORE
Z (No harm, no foul either way. Maharishi always
"did the right thing" because he had no choice;
the three gunas "really" did everything. He's off
the hook for anything we perceive as "incorrect"
behavior because that's merely our limited per-
ception of "his" actions, which weren't "really"
his at all but the actions of the three gunas.)
BZZZZZT. DOES NOT COMPILE, BECAUSE
A IS NOT A VALID VARIABLE. IT HAS NOT
BEEN DECLARED AS ABSOLUTE.
What Judy's argument boils down to is an appeal to those
who believe that A is not only true, but Truth. It is neither.
It is a theory, thought up in the Dark Ages of Vedic thought
to "explain" How The Universe Works.
Judy clearly believes that A is true. Thus it never occurred
to her that the rest of her argument falls apart if it *isn't*
true. If it *isn't* true, and Maharishi had free will, then
both B and C become irrelevancies, and Z as well.
Her argument was "pitched" at people she expected to never
question whether A was true. It was an attempt to "play off
of" the shared assumption that A is true, and force a conclu-
sion that whatever Maharishi's actions -- or our perceptions
of them -- they were not his responsibility because neither he
nor we have any responsibility for *any* of our actions. They
are not "our" actions at all; they're the actions of the three
gunas.
Bzzzzzzzt.
Not everyone believes this. I, for one, do not. I think that the
"three gunas do it all" theory is full of crap, and that each of us
very much "do" the things that we do. And we have full respons-
iblity for them, and for their outcomes.
I completely *understand* why some would prefer to believe
in the "three gunas do it all" theory. It involves a complete
abdication of responsibility for one's actions. No matter what
we do, we get off scot-free because "we" don't really do them
at all -- the three gunas do everything, with us as mere puppets.
Anyone who has watched the dance Judy does to avoid admit-
ting that she made a mistake about anything knows why she
wants to believe this. :-) Others here probably believe it for
other reasons, including the reason they believe so many other
things: "Maharishi said it, therefore it is true." Or "I was told
that it's in the Vedas, so it's not only true, it's Truth."
I cry bullshit. A is *not* Truth. It's a THEORY about How
The Universe Works, and no better or "higher" or "more true"
than any other theory. In fact, to believe that A *is* true, you
have to completely ignore your own daily perceptions of your
own actions, and the perception that you do indeed have free
will, and a say in what you do, and how you do it. Talk about
cognitive dissonance -- perceiving one thing, but believing
another.
I even understand why many might believe that A is true,
based on their own subjective experiences, fleeting or long-term.
There is a "brain switch" that, when flipped (by drugs, by being
probed by an electrode, as a result of years of meditation, what-
ever) puts the brain into a mode in which one *perceives* that
one is "not the doer." Actions seem to be happening all on their
own, with any sense of oneself limited to being a "witness" to
them happening. I do not deny that this brain switch can be
flipped and that people can experience this subjectively; been
there, done that.
But the fact that we experienced this way of perceiving our own
actions subjectively DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. It's Just Another
Subjective Experience.
Many in the TMO believe that when this brain switch flips on,
they have achieved a "higher" state of consciousness, a "higher"
level of functioning and perception. Many believe that this is
the "ultimate" level of functioning and perception, and that we
should all aspire to it.
Bzzzzzzzt.
Again, I don't believe this. I think it is Just Another Subjective
Experience, no "higher" or "better" or "ultimate" than any other.
And I think that so many people feel otherwise for a very simple
reason that they are not willing to admit to: They were *told*
that it's "higher" or "better" or "ultimate" or closer to Truth
by Maharishi, someone they tend to believe when he says
ANYTHING, including how much fun Vedaland is going
to be when it opens. :-)
So, I hope this clarifies my position in all of this. The argument
presented by Judy can *only* be valid if A is true. If one holds
that A is not true, just an unproved theory, it's mere sophistry,
and worse, an attempt to play on the shared assumptions of
others to cut Maharishi a break on actions that most of us
agree were inexcusable. In other words, I think that the whole
thing was just one more exercise in cult apology.
You may believe otherwise if you care to. I don't really care
what you believe. In this post I've merely tried to explain
what I believe, and why. I don't believe that the perception
that we have free will and thus are responsible for our
actions and our decisions is an illusion. I think it's an
accurate perception, How The Universe Works.
That's my theory. It's no "better" than the three gunas theory,
but no "worse," either. It's just an opinion. So is everything
ever said by Maharishi, or in the Vedas.
