--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > 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.
Or because they've encountered the idea from other sources. It's by no means an idea unique to MMY, of course. You're using "taught" to suggest indoctrination, whereas it's entirely possible to adopt an idea one has encountered from one's own reading and/or listening and/or observation and decide it's plausible on one's own hook. You load your own argument by assuming indoctrination as a given. > 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. Or that they encountered from others and decided, after careful consideration, was correct. *You* keep "forgetting" that ideas TMers have don't necessarily all come from MMY. You also keep "forgetting" that TMers don't necessarily simply swallow every idea they get from MMY without closely examining it first. 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. Or somebody else did, or numerous somebodies. In any case, there's no other way that a person could come to such a conclusion, as is the case with many assumptions about the nature of enlightenment or whether a given person is enlightened. So by calling it "circular reasoning," you're not saying anything. > > > 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. Or that others have suggested. 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. If you believe the definition that the enlightened person can do no wrong, and believe that a given person is enlightened, yes, that's the logical conclusion. Duh. So what's your beef? 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. Or, if the person *is* enlightened, he or she may simply be definining his or her understanding and experience of the state. It's only self-serving if (a) the person is in fact not enlightened, or (b) if the enlightened person is not incapable of doing wrong. It's *your* argument here that's circular. > > 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. See above. Obviously the situation is *not* the same if (a) MMY is enlightened and (b) he's accurately describing that state. To make the situation the same, you have to assume he's not enlightened or is not accurately describing the state. > > > 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. Absolutely. But that's irrelevant, because Lawson wasn't claiming MMY was enlightened. He *was* claiming that the attitude that one can do no wrong is valid for an enlightened person. And as I said, it's perfectly reasonable to believe such an attitude is *not* valid even for an enlightened person. But you haven't made an argument for that belief; all you've done is dumped on Lawson for having stated his own belief. > 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. You're not getting it. In the first place, as noted, that definition is by no means unique to MMY. In the second place, none of us knows whether it's true or not; we have to use our own judgment and understanding. In the third place, the same is the case for the question of whether any given person is enlightened; we can't know for sure. You've made no argument as to why we should or should not believe either. Yet you seem to be suggesting that it's wrong or stupid to hold those beliefs, as if it were somehow self-evident. > > > 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. :-) In the first place, I haven't been defending MMY, nor have I been defending the idea that the enlightened person can do no wrong. Rather, I've been pointing out that your argument doesn't make sense on its own terms. In the second place, as noted, the definition is not unique to MMY. In the third place, once again, that a person believes something and argues for it (although that's not what I was doing) does *not* automatically mean they have been "programmed" to believe it. As I said, it's a weasel word selected for the purpose of loading your (non)argument. You've just spent an entire post defending the idea that TMers are stupid or wrong to believe something. I guess that means you've been programmed with that idea. > > 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. :-) And how, pray tell, would an argument that isn't just a "justification" sound? How can you tell the difference? > > 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." :-) No, there's a difference. We're also "allowed" to believe neither is the case. > > > 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. Not just MMY's definition. You keep "forgetting" that it isn't unique to MMY. > 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. It may not be universal, but it's certainly fairly common. And on what basis do you suggest that "we guys" have accepted it without question (especially since I haven't even endorsed it myself)? Why does accepting an idea automatically mean, as far as you're concerned, that it was done "without question"? Your entire argument that TMers are making unwarranted assumptions is based solely on taking your own unwarranted assumptions as givens. ------------------------ 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/
