So you're perfectly OK with someone else deciding for him or herself whether it is appropriate behavior, and living accordingly? Even though he or she could be deliberating whether to kill you?
People who say dumb stuff like what you said about the Gita and its lessons are always thinking about the "out" it gives them for their *own* bad behavior. They never seem to look at it the other way and think that some blue-skinned guy might be telling his followers to kill *them*. I presume that being killed by someone "established in Being" is just fine with you. ________________________________ From: "Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis, on "witnessing" Ann wrote: Of course, one would also have to define "bad behavior" beyond the obvious. Share replies: It's an interesting exercise when you consider that in the Gita Lord Krishna was basically telling Arjuna to kill people. But to do so "established in Being." I think the ultimate consequence of such a teaching is to encourage each seeker to decide for himself or herself what is acceptable behavior and what is not and to live accordingly. And I think this is a sign of a fully developed human. On Sunday, May 18, 2014 10:36 AM, "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Just for da record... I don't need to go into any detail here but just can mention that subjective experiences were never evaluated separated from behavior. I believe that Maharishi got that right. I don't need to say any more about that because you provided more than enough information for people to judge if your behavior and claims match up. What if what has been described as enlightenment in the past has *absolutely nothing* to do with personality or behavior? What if, just as those who described it in the past have said, it is purely about consciousness, having the ability to directly perceive eternality 24/7, and that ability has *absolutely nothing* to do with what is going on simultaneously in terms of personality and behavior? --Barry Wright, awhile back on alt.m.t You'd never know Barry had ever entertained this perspective the way he links behavior and enlightenment these days, would you? I happen to favor this understanding of enlightenment myself, one of Barry's and my rare points of agreement. C: You are mixing up levels here. In traditional systems it is emphasized that there is a wide range of possible behaviors for the so called enlightened. I am referring to how Maharishi managed the path. The issue is confused further by Jim self proclaiming himself as enlightened within a system that has broken down. The inmates are now running the TM prison. But in the context of the movement itself there would be no recognition of Jim's self proclaimed status. Authority in the organization is gained through time served or lots of cash, not subjective claims for experience. In my view, because I do not assume that discrete states of enlightenment exist or that it means anything concerning how the world works, I am judging people just on their words and deeds. No one gets an enlightenment pass for bad behavior including the so called gurus. I've been saying this the whole time here. I completely agree. Of course, one would also have to define "bad behavior" beyond the obvious.
