--- 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.
But that's not what MMY teaches anyway. > > 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. He provided *A* definition of enlightened, and perhaps some distorted version of this definition is what they are using to judge the behavior of someone they believe is 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.. The behavior is valid, regardless. We ALWAYS do what we want anyway. > > > 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. He provided a definition of enlightenment that some people believe allows someone who is enlightened to do anything they want without consequences but that's not what MMY's definition of enlightenment says anyway... > > > > 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. Of course. Regardless of whether or not you read my earlier remark as saying that MMY is enlightened, I never said that he was, nor did I say that his behavior was good/bad/whatever. > > 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. His definitionof enlightenment says that if he is enlightened, everything he does is in accord with Natural Law (which it would be even if he was NOT enlightened). More to the point, that for his own personal spiritual evolution (at least), his behavior is the best thing he can be doing. 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. Given that MMY's definition of enlightenment doesn't say that an enlightened person is always doing the "right thing" in the usual sense of the term, the above is a genuine stawman argument. An enlightened person can still stutter, stub his toe, use a word inappropriately,etc. MMY's definition involves freedom from mistakes in spiritual evolution, not mundane definitions of right, wrong, good, bad, legal, illegal, etc. Now insomuch as these are all rules designed to help people get along with each other and help them in their spiritual evolution, it seems likely that an enlightened person would spontaneously tend to be more in-tune with right, good, legal, rather than wrong, bad, illegal, but by MMY's definition, the enlightened person isn't *bound* by the rules: he generally follows them because they are in-line with what he was going to do anyway. > > > > 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. :-) Except you're attacking a definition that doesn't exist, so if Judy is defending what you say she's defending, you're both arguing about nothing. > > > 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. He defines enlightened as being in a certain state or series of states of consciousness. One of the correlaries of this is the inability to chose to do counter-spiritual-evolutionary action (whatever that is). > 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. While I personally have never heard him comment on this, others have told me that he explicitly clsays that he is no always right on every detail of some subject. And you can certainly assume that that is his attitude given that he asks experts in ayurveda to trainpeople in ayurveda rather than attempt to train them himself. For that matter, he doesn't fly the airplane that he travels in. > > I'd say that all of that adds up to a big "declaration." :-) Based on bunches of assumptions of your own. > > > > 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. Didn't quite say that either. > > 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. > It's also not MMY's definition. ------------------------ 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/
