--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > <snip> > > > > > 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. > > I was not defending what Barry said I was defending, > either MMY or the definition. I was pointing out > that Barry's reasoning was fallacious. I expressed > no opinion one way or the other as to whether MMY was > enlightened or whether the notion that the enlightened > person can "do no wrong" was correct. > > Barry's attacking a *defense* that doesn't exist. > > > > > 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. > > Here's what you said (including what you were > responding to): > > > > > 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... > > I think my paraphrase is accurate. >
You're right. I clarified my statement later by tacking on the "given that the definition is true." Of course one could hedge things further by adding "or that one believes it is true." ------------------------ 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/
