--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Just a comment related to "The 'I did it, therefore it > > must be the dharma' phenomenon" topic I started today: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > But there will always be those who refuse to see that they are > > > harming themselves by their own actions done from their own free > > > will. Then perhaps they end up in a clinic with a nervous > > > breakdown or worse, on a railwayline. > > > > > > What is sickening by your endless crusade about SatGurus who is > > > there with you and blabla, is that you, Ron or whoever, do not > > > seem to understand that you are responsible for your own > > > evolution. > > > > Interesting juxtaposition of ideas. > > > > In the first paragraph, those who use their free will > > are "harming themselves," and may end up institutionalized. > > > > In the next paragraph, these same people are responsible > > for their own evolution. > > > > It would seem to me that Nablus is saying that their > > "responsibility" revolves around *doing what they are > > told to do*. Anything else is potentially harmful, and > > may result in being institutionalized or committing > > suicide. The only valid use of "free will" is to DO > > WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD BY MAHARISHI. > <snip> > > He doesn't even see a conflict between demonizing > > free will in his first paragraph and then stating > > that everyone is responsible for their own evolution > > in the next paragraph. > > Hmm, I thought you insisted that being able > to hold two contradictory ideas in one's mind > at once without seeing a conflict was a sign > of advanced spiritual development. > > I guess it's only such a sign when you do it. > When a TMer does it, it's "doublethink." > > In any case, though, what Nablus said about > free will isn't at all contradictory. > > Suppose you were taking Valium for a back problem, > and your doctor told you not to quit taking the > Valium cold turkey because it might lead you to > commit suicide. You quit cold turkey anyway and > shortly thereafter commit suicide. > > Would it be "demonizing" free will to point out > that you were responsible for your own demise?
Hmmm. It seems to me that your argument is built on the premise that the "doctor" (Maharishi, in this metaphor) knows what he is doing, and is right. In that case, ignoring your free will and doing what he said would be a valid approach. But what if the metaphor-doctor were Harold Bloomfield, and the advice he gave you was *wrong*, and was in fact likely to kill you if you followed it? (This happened to a friend of mine in L.A. who was his patient; the doctors she went to to *save* her from the prescription he wrote for her advised her to sue him for mal- practice, and even offered to testify on her behalf. She didn't do it, because at the time he was a TMO honcho and a "darling" of MMY.) In such a case, are you wise to follow the "doctor's" advice? Are you wise to continue following it if it lands you in the hospital? I'm asking because your metaphor was clearly intended to convey the "wisdom" of following Maharishi's advice by portraying him as a know- ledgeable "doctor." There is a *presumption* on your part that he "knows best." What if he doesn't? Isn't your argument based on the very phenomenon I was talking about in my other post this morning, a *presumption* that Maharishi's advice is "right" because he's "in tune with the laws of nature?" What if he isn't? What if there is *no such thing* as "being in tune with the laws of nature," merely human beings saying what they believe to be true and doing the things that they believe to be "right?" Was it a good idea for the woman in my story above to *not* sue Harold Bloomfield because he was a TMer? As it turned out, he was later busted for much more serious lapses of attention and infractions of the law. Was she correct to *assume* that because he was one of "Maharishi's darlings" that he knew what he was doing and that he had the "support of the laws of nature?" Is *your* assumption that Maharishi knows what he is doing and that he has the support of the laws of nature any more sound than my friend's in L.A.? No answers from my side, just questions, to see how you deal with them. Your call.
