--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MMY's personality is very much a product of his time > and culture. It has nothing to do with anything > "cosmic". Blazing Brahman expresses itself through an > aging, slightly senile, lower-caste, 89 year old Hindu > man who has run a spiritual movement with an iron fist > for the past 50 years.
Boy, I think this is an important point. Peter, would it also be correct to phrase it slightly differently and say, This is *how* Blazing Brahman is expressing itself through this particular aging, slightly senile, lower-caste, 89-year-old Hindu man who has run a spiritual movement with an iron fist for the past 50 years? I mean, obviously one has to think MMY has *realized* Blazing Brahman in order to make either of these two statements. But people tend to look at the *expression*, find it to be much less than what they think of as "perfection" in a relative sense, and on that basis assume MMY has *not* realized Brahman. Of course whether he has or hasn't is still one's individual take; it's just that the take shouldn't be based, it seems to me, on the perceived distance of the expression from what they would consider relative perfection. So what should it be based on?? I assume realized people and nonrealized people have different ways of evaluating MMY's state of consciousness. >From my unrealized perspective, it's a combination of a gut hunch, and my awe at the depth, comprehensiveness, and internal consistency of his teaching on the nature and mechanics of consciousness (including its implementation in the TM technique), as well as the teaching'sextraordinary explanatory value. It just doesn't seem possible to me that a person, no matter how brilliant their mind, could come up with such a teaching purely on an intellectual basis. It has to be coming from some basis in higher intuitive knowledge (or Knowledge, to distinguish it from intellectual knowledge). Of course, that's still based on a sense of how close MMY's expression comes to my idea of relative perfection, which is what I just said you shouldn't do. Now I'm trying to figure out on what basis I think evaluating his teaching on the nature and mechanics of consciousness is a more appropriate criterion on which to have an opinion of his realization, versus evaluating the sensibleness of his political and social pronouncements and what he's been doing with the TMO. Help me out here. They're both measuring what MMY expresses against a personal idea of relative perfection. Why should choosing one *type* of expression over another make a difference? Or are both approaches essentially absurd? Obviously I've gone off on something of a tangent here... The value of our interaction > with him has nothing to do with the "surface" of this > relationship. This "surface" always varies from guru > to guru and is quite irrelevent to the transcendent > value of the relationship. MMY doesn't give a damn > about your personality. It is utterly irrelevent to > your Realization. > > --- Premanand Paul Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > I have received an email relating to a press > > conference in which MMY > > allegedly "made himself look and sound like an Ill > > tempered raving > > lunatic." <snip> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Ever feel sad or cry for no reason at all? Depression. Narrated by Kate Hudson. http://us.click.yahoo.com/CQDrNC/ubOLAA/d1hLAA/0NYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
