--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer > <fairfieldlife@> > > > wrote: > > > > on 2/3/06 5:49 PM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Even then (mid-70s), they had convinced themselves > > > > > that they were so "in tune" with "Natural Law" that > > > > > they had the right to violate actual law. > > > > > > > > I often got the feeling from Maharishi, and recent speeches > > > > seem to reflect this, that he didn't have much respect for > > > > the level of intelligence that formulated man-made laws. > > > > He considered man-made laws legitimate and worthy > > > > of his obedience to the degree that they conformed to > > > > Natural Law, and he considered his own desires and intentions > > > > to be a perfect expression of Natural Law. Thus, if a man- > > > > made law didn't jibe with his desire, he considered it a > > > > misguided hindrance to his higher purpose and had no qualms > > > > about violating it. > > > > > > A perfectly valid attitude for someone enlightened... > > > > Is it? Or were you just *taught* that, by example? > > Well, unless one were oneself enlightened, of course, > the only way one would have that idea is if one heard > it from someone or saw it in their behavior, right? > So "Is it?" is a bogus question, unless you're assuming > Lawson is enlightened. > > (BTW, "taught" in this and other similar contexts is a > weasel word, selected for the purpose of loading the > argument.)
No, actually, "taught" is a reminder that those who believe that the enlightened can do no wrong believe that because they were explicitly *taught* that by Maharishi. The situation that people keep forgetting is that by this time they *assume* that the definition of enlight- enment they were given by Maharishi is correct. They also assume that he's enlightened. Therefore, they tend to assume that everything he does is, almost by definition, "right." But it's all circular reasoning. *He* provided the definition of enlightenment that they're using to judge the behavior of the enlightened. > > Such behavior is, after all, *also* seen in megalo- > > maniacs and in people with extreme narcissism. Is > > it "valid" in their cases? I'd really like to hear > > your answer to that question. > > Lawson specified that it was valid *in the case of > someone who is enlightened*. ONLY if you buy the definition of enlightenment that Maharishi peddles. That's my point. His definition is that the enlightened can do no wrong. Therefore, if you assume that someone is enlightened, that person can do no wrong. What I'm suggesting is that this is a VERY self-serving definition of enlightenment, one whose very purpose is to allow the person giving the definition to get away with anything they want, if he can convince people that he's enlightened.. > Why should that also > apply to megalomaniacs and people with extreme > narcissism? It's another bogus question. What I'm suggesting is that the situation is exactly the same. In the case of Maharishi, *he* defined enlightenment, giving a definition that allows him to do anything he bloody well pleases and be allowed to get away with it by people who buy into his definition. The same situation is true of megalo- maniacs and narcissicists; they come up with the rationalizations for why they are "above" the law. > > The thing is, charlatans have been getting away with > > shit for millennia by claiming that they are "above" > > the requirements imposed on "lesser" men. But are > > they? > > Again, why should what applies to the enlightened, > as specified by Lawson, be taken also to apply to > charlatans? Nothing in what Lawson said suggests > such a thing. My point is that NO ONE knows whether Maharishi is enlightened or whether he is a charlatan. NO ONE. Including you. He could just as easily be a charlatan. But you're willing to use *his* definition of what enlightenment is, a definition that requires you, if you believe he's enlightened, to believe that *every- thing* he does is right. If he's really enlightened, you've bought into a belief system that requires you to believe that everything he does is right. If he happens to be a charlatan, you've bought into a belief system that has you believing that everything he does is right. > > In Maharishi's case, he convinces people such > > as Bob that he's in tune with something he calls > > "Natural Law," which of course only he is evolved > > enough to perceive and define. Because Bob has been > > programmed to believe such declarations, he cuts > > Maharishi a great deal of slack when he does things > > that are questionable or even outright illegal. > > First, "programmed" is another weasel word chosen for > the purpose of loading the argument. You've just spent an entire post defending a guy based on the definition of enlightenment that *he* taught you. I'd say "programmed" is relevant. :-) > There are lots > of reasons why people believe certain things, only > one of which is that they have been "programmed" to > believe them--as opposed to, say, making one's own > observations, carefully reflecting on them on the > basis of one's experience and understanding, and > arriving at a conclusion based on those reflections. To me, these sound like "justifications," made up by people who want to cloak the fact that they just happen to believe pretty much everything they were told to believe. :-) > Second, MMY has made no such "declarations," at > least not that I'm aware, nor has anyone here said > he has. Impressions are what are being cited in > this discussion. He has *allowed* people in his organization to believe that he is enlightened for 40 years now. He has also defined enlightenment as being unable to do wrong. Therefore, he has carefully *allowed* everyone to believe that he can do no wrong. If he had *not* intended to convey this impression, he could have stated outright that he was not enlightened, or that he makes mistakes; neither has happened. I'd say that all of that adds up to a big "declaration." :-) > > But the tyrants and the narcissistic maniacs of the > > world also took the same stand. *They* justified > > their behavior by claiming they were "above" the law > > and reported to a "higher authority." > > True enough. So the issue is whether one believes > a person who does not act according to the law > (remember, there are no "stands" or "claims" > involved in MMY's case, just the impressions of > others as to why he says and does certain things) > is a tyrant or a narcissistic maniac, or a person > who is enlightened. > > Lawson didn't offer an opinion on whether MMY was > enlightened, of course. He said merely that *if* > a person was enlightened, it was valid for them > to consider themselves above the law. ONLY if you buy Maharishi's definition of enlightenment. THAT is the point I'm making. HE defined enlightenment as being "above the law." That is NOT a universal definition of enlightenment. But you guys accept it without question. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
