[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: snip Or, to put this in the framework of some people's enlightenment type experiences, sure you chop wood and carry water both before and after the Big E. The only difference is that after the Big E comes the knowledge that everything is happening by itself, on autopilot and in that case 2. no one does anything wrong since it all happens anyway and choice is a total illusion. Therefore (and this BIG) 3. the Enlightened make the same mistakes and right actions as the unenlightened. Why would their behavior improve if you use this model? And...4 The Enlightened know that they don't make mistakes, while the rest of us not yet enlightened blame ourselves as we wrangle over doing the moral thing. Maybe it is a question of how much sattva is there in the nervous system of any person, Enlightened or not? Of course, this means that MMY is not making any mistakes either - no matter how unkind or greedy the actions are - whew this is crazymaking stuff. The upshot is that for the unenlightened, we just keep on trying, even if it is an illusion that we have control. And part of that illusion is that it usually feels better to be around nice, funny people, honest people, kind people. There are enlightened rascals and unenlightened saints. I think the perfection that we are all looking for, living in a human nervous system, is way beyond enlightenement -I don't know what name you call it. Maybe it only manifests in Sat Yuga. But for here and now, we just have to keep it simple. I think the TMO hurts people and is dishonest while the technique is a good one. I would advise anyone to stay away from involvement with the TMO where money or lifeplans are involved. Thanks for a *very* sane post Boy, I'll say. (Somehow I missed this first time around.) Kudos, wayback! This goes in the Keeper file. Eh, not everyone who remains involved with the TMO believes that they have been harmed by their involvement, even if many people around them do. Examples: John Hagelin and Doug Henning. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: [Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.]
Snoopy typing on his typewriter, "It was a dark and stormy night.". is considered, the world's greatest one-line novel. Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:29:41 -0600 Huckleberry Finn - generally regarded as the greatest American novel. Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Maharishi university of management Maharishi mahesh yogi Ramana maharshi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: [Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason Spock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Snoopy typing on his typewriter, It was a dark and stormy night.. is considered, the world's greatest one-line novel. Not quite. :-) Schultz was just paying homage to one of the most atrocious first lines of a novel in history: It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness. -- Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, Paul Clifford (1830) Notice that it's all one sentence. It inspired a contest that is really a hoot, the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. The objective is to write the first sentence of the worst novels never printed. From the website: An international literary parody contest, the competition honors the memory (if not the reputation) of Victorian novelist Edward George Earl Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873). The goal of the contest is childishly simple: entrants are challenged to submit bad opening sentences to imaginary novels. Although best known for The Last Days of Pompeii (1834), which has been made into a movie three times, originating the expression the pen is mightier than the sword, and phrases like the great unwashed and the almighty dollar, Bulwer-Lytton opened his novel Paul Clifford (1830) with the immortal words that the Peanuts Beagle Snoopy plagiarized for years, It was a dark and stormy night. Find out more at: http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/ Some examples from that website, the 2005 winners: 2005 Grand Winner: As he stared at her ample bosom, he daydreamed of the dual Stromberg carburetors in his vintage Triumph Spitfire, highly functional yet pleasingly formed, perched prominently on top of the intake manifold, aching for experienced hands, the small knurled caps of the oil dampeners begging to be inspected and adjusted as described in chapter seven of the shop manual. Dan McKay Fargo, ND Runner-Up: When Detective Riggs was called to investigate the theft of a trainload of Native American fish broth concentrate bound for market, he solved the case almost immediately, being that the trail of clues led straight to the trainmaster, who had both the locomotive and the Hopi tuna tea. Mitsy Rae Danbury, NE Grand Panjandrum's Special Award India, which hangs like a wet washcloth from the towel rack of Asia, presented itself to Tex as he landed in Delhi (or was it Bombay?), as if it mattered because Tex finally had an idea to make his mark and fortune and that idea was a chain of steak houses to serve the millions and he wondered, as he deplaned down the steep, shiny, steel steps, why no one had thought of it before. Ken Aclin Shreveport, LA Winner: Adventure Category Captain Burton stood at the bow of his massive sailing ship, his weathered face resembling improperly cured leather that wouldn't even be used to make a coat or something. Bryan Semrow Oshkosh, WI Runner-Up It was high noon in the jungles of South India when I began to recognize that if we didn't find water for our emus soon, it wouldn't be long before we would be traveling by foot; and with the guerilla warriors fast on our heals, I was starting to regret my decision to use poultry for transportation. Eric Winter Minneapolis, MN Dishonorable Mention When the great Italian archeologist, Giovanni Battista de Rossi, broke through the centuries of choking rubble and rock in the abandoned catacombs under Rome and the dust cleared, he held his blazing torch high, pickup a flat, dirt-encrusted object with a row of teeth, examined it with his educated eye, and exclaimed, By the saints, I do believe I've discovered another ancient kitty comb. Mitsy Rae Danbury, NE Winner: Children's Literature The woods were all a-twitter with rumors that the Seven Dwarves were planning a live reunion after their attempted solo careers had dismally sputtered into Z-list oblivion and it was all just a matter of meeting a ten-page list of outlandish demands (including 700- threadcount Egyptian cotton bedsheets, lots of white lilies and a separate trailer for the magic talking mirror) to get the Princess Formerly Known As Snow White on board. Shelby Leung Dulwich Hill NSW, Australia Runner-Up When Mr Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday, his children packed his bags and drove him to Golden Pastures retirement complex just off Interstate 95. Stephen Farnsworth Manchester, U.K. Dishonorable Mentions Because of her mysterious ways I was fascinated with Dorothy and I wondered if she would ever consider having a relationship with a lion, but I have to admit that most of my attention was directed at her little dog Toto because, after all, he was a source of meat
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: [Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason Spock jedi_spock@ wrote: Snoopy typing on his typewriter, It was a dark and stormy night.. is considered, the world's greatest one-line novel. Not quite. :-) Schultz was just paying homage to one of the most atrocious first lines of a novel in history: It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness. -- Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, Paul Clifford (1830) Notice that it's all one sentence. It inspired a contest that is really a hoot, the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. The objective is to write the first sentence of the worst novels never printed. From the website: An international literary parody contest, the competition honors the memory (if not the reputation) of Victorian novelist Edward George Earl Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873). The goal of the contest is childishly simple: entrants are challenged to submit bad opening sentences to imaginary novels. Although best known for The Last Days of Pompeii (1834), which has been made into a movie three times, originating the expression the pen is mightier than the sword, and phrases like the great unwashed and the almighty dollar, Bulwer-Lytton opened his novel Paul Clifford (1830) with the immortal words that the Peanuts Beagle Snoopy plagiarized for years, It was a dark and stormy night. Find out more at: http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/ Some examples from that website, the 2005 winners: 2005 Grand Winner: As he stared at her ample bosom, he daydreamed of the dual Stromberg carburetors in his vintage Triumph Spitfire, highly functional yet pleasingly formed, perched prominently on top of the intake manifold, aching for experienced hands, the small knurled caps of the oil dampeners begging to be inspected and adjusted as described in chapter seven of the shop manual. Dan McKay Fargo, ND Big Snip of really funny stuff ** Thanks for that - laugh out loud stuff, for sure! JohnY 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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, though you have to face the consquences regardless of your state of consciousness, if you are caught. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. For me, the bottom line is that the moment anyone -- anyone -- makes this claim, it's time to step back and make a determination about whether you feel they are sane. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.) 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*. Why should that also apply to megalomaniacs and people with extreme narcissism? It's another bogus question. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that an enlightened person is *not* above the law. But the fact that tyrants and maniacs also claim they're above the law is not a sound basis for such a belief. In fact, it's irrelevant; it's a version of the guilt-by-association fallacy. For me, the bottom line is that the moment anyone -- anyone -- makes this claim, it's time to step back and make a determination about whether you feel they are sane. Well, of course it is, nor did Lawson say anything to the contrary, unless you assume that an enlightened person may also be insane (a whole 'nother can of worms). Otherwise, the determination is whether they're insane, or enlightened. I suspect no one here disagrees that if a person who makes such a claim is not enlightened, then they're very likely insane. (One possible factor, among others, in making such a determination might be whether the person in question actually makes a declaration that they are justified in breaking the law because they're enlightened. It seems to me that making an announcement to that effect would put some weight on the insane side--although, of course, *not* making that announcement
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. H Very disturbing. The corruption of power. My intent is the will of God. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- 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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
on 2/4/06 4:11 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? 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. The thing is, charlatans have been getting away with shit for millennia by claiming that they are above the requirements imposed on lesser men. Taxes are for the little people. - Leona Helmsley 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
I'd like to see any of these rationalizations hold up in court! Sal On Feb 4, 2006, at 9:32 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: 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..
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
I recall a story Lucy Lediaev to our science of creative intelligence class of Maharishi rushing to catch a plane. Because he was late he told his driver to run the red lights on the way to the airport. His entourage trailed further and further behind him because they couldn't just plow through the intersections with impunity. We heard this story with laughter and amazement at how cool it would be to be enlightened. In enlightenment, we would operate outside of the normal restrictions of life. Spontaneous right action! Support of all the laws of nature! I suppose it was simply a few incremental steps to graduate from running lights to smuggling money. Perhaps the correct answer to the question, Would you smuggle these funds to Switzerland? is, I may when I'm enlightened, but right now it wouldn't be right. Speaking of laws of nature, most of us have probably experienced how, once we learn the rules of something, we gain the ability to break them and get a way with it. In fact, most creative breakthroughs result from the intelligent breaking of a rule. Some of your best writing may have come from breaking some rule of grammar. I'll bet many of you programmers have broken some custom in the world of coding to create truly elegant code. It doesn't seem unrealistic to me that someone would master living to the point that he breaks its rules and comes out ahead. It may indeed be hard to differentiate between the behavior of an enlightened person and a person with mental illness. I guess the lesson is, Be careful. The person you think is enlightened may be nuts, and either way, you may not be able to keep up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? 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. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to see any of these rationalizations hold up in court! I guess you must have missed Lawson's post saying: A perfectly valid attitude for someone enlightened, though you have to face the consquences regardless of your state of consciousness, if you are caught. Sal On Feb 4, 2006, at 9:32 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: 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.. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
on 2/4/06 10:05 AM, Patrick Gillam at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking of laws of nature, most of us have probably experienced how, once we learn the rules of something, we gain the ability to break them and get a way with it. In fact, most creative breakthroughs result from the intelligent breaking of a rule. Some of your best writing may have come from breaking some rule of grammar. Huckleberry Finn - generally regarded as the greatest American novel. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. H Very disturbing. The corruption of power. My intent is the will of God. But, within the description of enlightenment that MMYpresents, how could an enlightened person behave differently than following his/her inner intuition? Perhaps that inner intuition says to follow the law without question, or perhaps it doesn't, but in either case, the enlightened person has no CHOICE but to do what they are doing... 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? 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. They have to face the consequences, also... 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? 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. 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. For me, the bottom line is that the moment anyone -- anyone -- makes this claim, it's time to step back and make a determination about whether you feel they are sane. Very 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- 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-
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, within the description of enlightenment that MMYpresents, how could an enlightened person behave differently than following his/her inner intuition? Perhaps that inner intuition says to follow the law without question, or perhaps it doesn't, but in either case, the enlightened person has no CHOICE but to do what they are doing... Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. What *changed* in the operating system of the universe between unenlightenment and enlighten- ment? Did karma stop working? If one has a choice as to how to act before real- ization of enlightenment, one has the same choice afterwards. Those who claim otherwise are in my opinion trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. They may be avoiding this responsibility because they are up to no good, or they may be avoiding this responsibility because they honestly believe that God does everything, but it's the same bottom line. They wish their followers to cut them slack they would not extend to anyone else. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
on 2/4/06 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. What *changed* in the operating system of the universe between unenlightenment and enlighten- ment? Did karma stop working? If one has a choice as to how to act before real- ization of enlightenment, one has the same choice afterwards. Those who claim otherwise are in my opinion trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. They may be avoiding this responsibility because they are up to no good, or they may be avoiding this responsibility because they honestly believe that God does everything, but it's the same bottom line. They wish their followers to cut them slack they would not extend to anyone else. I agree. The enlightened man driving his car makes the decisions necessary to navigate successfully through traffic and arrive at his destination. Why shouldn't other decisions be just as volitional and just as subject to dire consequences if they are made capriciously? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: But, within the description of enlightenment that MMYpresents, how could an enlightened person behave differently than following his/her inner intuition? Perhaps that inner intuition says to follow the law without question, or perhaps it doesn't, but in either case, the enlightened person has no CHOICE but to do what they are doing... Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. Oh, good grief. Wrongaroonie. Didn't you say you used to be a TM teacher? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 2/4/06 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. What *changed* in the operating system of the universe between unenlightenment and enlighten- ment? Did karma stop working? If one has a choice as to how to act before real- ization of enlightenment, one has the same choice afterwards. Those who claim otherwise are in my opinion trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. They may be avoiding this responsibility because they are up to no good, or they may be avoiding this responsibility because they honestly believe that God does everything, but it's the same bottom line. They wish their followers to cut them slack they would not extend to anyone else. I agree. The enlightened man driving his car makes the decisions necessary to navigate successfully through traffic and arrive at his destination. Why shouldn't other decisions be just as volitional and just as subject to dire consequences if they are made capriciously? Yup. My position on this is not really about Maharishi. It's just an observation I've come to after watching various spritual scenes for most of a lifetime. I really believe that the myth of the infallibility of the enlightened is one of the *worst* ideas in history, because of its ability to be abused. Teachers may start out very ethical, and trying their best to do things right, as they see right. But over time, there is *immense* pressure from the students to assume the mantle of infallibility. If the model taught to these students *reinforces* this belief in infallibility, sooner or later most teachers are going to fall back on it as an excuse to justify some unpopular decision that they have made or action they have performed. And then it all starts to do downhill from there. Personally, I really am in the camp of before enlight- enment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. I don't believe that there is *any* fundamental change that takes place after realization, except on the level *of* realization. Same karma, same necessity to make judgements to the best of one's ability. I think it's a disservice to both students and teachers to suggest otherwise, and that the potential down side of such a belief system is worse for the teachers than it is for the students. You just haven't gone through it until you've witnessed a tremendous teacher losing it heavily, and beginning to hide his or her actions behind the myth of They *must* be right, because I'm enlightened, so cut me some slack. It's heartbreaking. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer fairfieldlife@ wrote: snip I agree. The enlightened man driving his car makes the decisions necessary to navigate successfully through traffic and arrive at his destination. Why shouldn't other decisions be just as volitional and just as subject to dire consequences if they are made capriciously? Yup. My position on this is not really about Maharishi. Actually, it's been exclusively about Maharishi up to now. It's just an observation I've come to after watching various spritual scenes for most of a lifetime. I really believe that the myth of the infallibility of the enlightened is one of the *worst* ideas in history, because of its ability to be abused. Actually, it's one of the most *misunderstood* ideas in history. It's the misunderstood version that's the disastrously bad one, because it has practical implications. The real one doesn't. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer fairfieldlife@ wrote: on 2/4/06 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. What *changed* in the operating system of the universe between unenlightenment and enlighten- ment? Did karma stop working? If one has a choice as to how to act before real- ization of enlightenment, one has the same choice afterwards. Those who claim otherwise are in my opinion trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. They may be avoiding this responsibility because they are up to no good, or they may be avoiding this responsibility because they honestly believe that God does everything, but it's the same bottom line. They wish their followers to cut them slack they would not extend to anyone else. I agree. The enlightened man driving his car makes the decisions necessary to navigate successfully through traffic and arrive at his destination. Why shouldn't other decisions be just as volitional and just as subject to dire consequences if they are made capriciously? Yup. My position on this is not really about Maharishi. It's just an observation I've come to after watching various spritual scenes for most of a lifetime. I really believe that the myth of the infallibility of the enlightened is one of the *worst* ideas in history, because of its ability to be abused. Teachers may start out very ethical, and trying their best to do things right, as they see right. But over time, there is *immense* pressure from the students to assume the mantle of infallibility. If the model taught to these students *reinforces* this belief in infallibility, sooner or later most teachers are going to fall back on it as an excuse to justify some unpopular decision that they have made or action they have performed. And then it all starts to do downhill from there. Personally, I really am in the camp of before enlight- enment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. I don't believe that there is *any* fundamental change that takes place after realization, except on the level *of* realization. I agree Same karma, same necessity to make judgements to the best of one's ability. snip Or, to put this in the framework of some people's enlightenment type experiences, sure you chop wood and carry water both before and after the Big E. The only difference is that after the Big E comes the knowledge that everything is happening by itself, on autopilot and in that case 2. no one does anything wrong since it all happens anyway and choice is a total illusion. Therefore (and this BIG) 3. the Enlightened make the same mistakes and right actions as the unenlightened. Why would their behavior improve if you use this model? And...4 The Enlightened know that they don't make mistakes, while the rest of us not yet enlightened blame ourselves as we wrangle over doing the moral thing. Maybe it is a question of how much sattva is there in the nervous system of any person, Enlightened or not? Of course, this means that MMY is not making any mistakes either - no matter how unkind or greedy the actions are - whew this is crazymaking stuff. The upshot is that for the unenlightened, we just keep on trying, even if it is an illusion that we have control. And part of that illusion is that it usually feels better to be around nice, funny people, honest people, kind people. There are enlightened rascals and unenlightened saints. I think the perfection that we are all looking for, living in a human nervous system, is way beyond enlightenement -I don't know what name you call it. Maybe it only manifests in Sat Yuga. But for here and now, we just have to keep it simple. I think the TMO hurts people and is dishonest while the technique is a good one. I would advise anyone to stay away from involvement with the TMO where money or lifeplans are involved. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
I just have to say that wrongaroonie is one of the best comebacks I've heard in a long time. I'll be using it from now on. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: But, within the description of enlightenment that MMYpresents, how could an enlightened person behave differently than following his/her inner intuition? Perhaps that inner intuition says to follow the law without question, or perhaps it doesn't, but in either case, the enlightened person has no CHOICE but to do what they are doing... Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. Oh, good grief. Wrongaroonie. Didn't you say you used to be a TM teacher? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just have to say that wrongaroonie is one of the best comebacks I've heard in a long time. I'll be using it from now on. Thanks. I am happy for the both of you. It is comforting to have in our midst people who absolutely, no question about it, know what is wrong and what is right. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: But, within the description of enlightenment that MMYpresents, how could an enlightened person behave differently than following his/her inner intuition? Perhaps that inner intuition says to follow the law without question, or perhaps it doesn't, but in either case, the enlightened person has no CHOICE but to do what they are doing... Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. Oh, good grief. Wrongaroonie. Didn't you say you used to be a TM teacher? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: But, within the description of enlightenment that MMYpresents, how could an enlightened person behave differently than following his/her inner intuition? Perhaps that inner intuition says to follow the law without question, or perhaps it doesn't, but in either case, the enlightened person has no CHOICE but to do what they are doing... Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. The Self has no will. What *changed* in the operating system of the universe between unenlightenment and enlighten- ment? Did karma stop working? Did I say it did? If one has a choice as to how to act before real- ization of enlightenment, one has the same choice afterwards. Those who claim otherwise are in my opinion trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. They may be avoiding this responsibility because they are up to no good, or they may be avoiding this responsibility because they honestly believe that God does everything, but it's the same bottom line. They wish their followers to cut them slack they would not extend to anyone else. That might be. But how could you be sure either way? You do what yoiu think is right, whether it be following MMY's every whim, or mocking the same. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 2/4/06 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. What *changed* in the operating system of the universe between unenlightenment and enlighten- ment? Did karma stop working? If one has a choice as to how to act before real- ization of enlightenment, one has the same choice afterwards. Those who claim otherwise are in my opinion trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. They may be avoiding this responsibility because they are up to no good, or they may be avoiding this responsibility because they honestly believe that God does everything, but it's the same bottom line. They wish their followers to cut them slack they would not extend to anyone else. I agree. The enlightened man driving his car makes the decisions necessary to navigate successfully through traffic and arrive at his destination. Why shouldn't other decisions be just as volitional and just as subject to dire consequences if they are made capriciously? What capriociously? Why would someone's decision-making process be capricious if enlightened (and hence not owning the process since it is a guna-based thing) but not capricious prior to enlightenment? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer fairfieldlife@ wrote: on 2/4/06 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. What *changed* in the operating system of the universe between unenlightenment and enlighten- ment? Did karma stop working? If one has a choice as to how to act before real- ization of enlightenment, one has the same choice afterwards. Those who claim otherwise are in my opinion trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. They may be avoiding this responsibility because they are up to no good, or they may be avoiding this responsibility because they honestly believe that God does everything, but it's the same bottom line. They wish their followers to cut them slack they would not extend to anyone else. I agree. The enlightened man driving his car makes the decisions necessary to navigate successfully through traffic and arrive at his destination. Why shouldn't other decisions be just as volitional and just as subject to dire consequences if they are made capriciously? Yup. My position on this is not really about Maharishi. It's just an observation I've come to after watching various spritual scenes for most of a lifetime. I really believe that the myth of the infallibility of the enlightened is one of the *worst* ideas in history, because of its ability to be abused. The confusion seems to arise as a result of the enlightened person's great success in action becoming misinterpreted as they can do no wrong. Because of the state of the body and mind of the enlightened person, there is a near perfect degree of coordination between them and their environment. So much so that they become far more successful in every action. This coordination with the environment, this Oneness, can then be understood as the enlightened person becoming one with Nature; becoming more like a natural force than an ordinary human being. It then follows that because Nature can do no wrong, so can the enlightened person do no wrong. However, this is apparently often misinterpreted to mean that *morally* the enlightened person can do no wrong. Because morality is an entirely human concept, and not one found in Nature, its interpretation is highly subjective. So this conclusion that an enlightened person cannot do anything morally wrong is a mistaken conclusion, arising from the Reality that the enlightened person acts as a force of Nature. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
I'm confused by your question (below). I merely made a statement that I enjoyed the term wrongaroonie and looked forward to the time I might be able to employ it myself. Also I find it puzzling that Turquoise B. thought that the same compliment was somehow a statement re my absolute knowledge of right and wrong. Perhaps you and he operate on some different wavelength of communication than myself. Nevertheless, I still like the term and appreciate your use of it. No more, no less. Marek --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I just have to say that wrongaroonie is one of the best comebacks I've heard in a long time. I'll be using it from now on. Thanks. What confused you about it? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: But, within the description of enlightenment that MMYpresents, how could an enlightened person behave differently than following his/her inner intuition? Perhaps that inner intuition says to follow the law without question, or perhaps it doesn't, but in either case, the enlightened person has no CHOICE but to do what they are doing... Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. Oh, good grief. Wrongaroonie. Didn't you say you used to be a TM teacher? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm confused by your question (below). I merely made a statement that I enjoyed the term wrongaroonie and looked forward to the time I might be able to employ it myself. Also I find it puzzling that Turquoise B. thought that the same compliment was somehow a statement re my absolute knowledge of right and wrong. I apologize. I was making a joke and shouldn't have included you in it. It's a cute term, which is what I now assume you meant. I was just trying to make a comment about those who feel *they* know what is wrong in the world of beliefs, even if they call it wrongaroonie. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm confused by your question (below). I merely made a statement that I enjoyed the term wrongaroonie and looked forward to the time I might be able to employ it myself. Oh, OK, I thought you were being sarcastic. I'm glad you liked it. I just don't think of it as anything out of the ordinary, I guess, perhaps because I use it a lot! Also I find it puzzling that Turquoise B. thought that the same compliment was somehow a statement re my absolute knowledge of right and wrong. He (correctly) interpreted your comment as positive, and anything positive said about me is reason for Barry to put down the person saying it. Perhaps you and he operate on some different wavelength of communication than myself. You could say that. ;-) Nevertheless, I still like the term and appreciate your use of it. No more, no less. Marek --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I just have to say that wrongaroonie is one of the best comebacks I've heard in a long time. I'll be using it from now on. Thanks. What confused you about it? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I'm confused by your question (below). I merely made a statement that I enjoyed the term wrongaroonie and looked forward to the time I might be able to employ it myself. Also I find it puzzling that Turquoise B. thought that the same compliment was somehow a statement re my absolute knowledge of right and wrong. I apologize. I was making a joke and shouldn't have included you in it. It's a cute term, which is what I now assume you meant. I was just trying to make a comment about those who feel *they* know what is wrong in the world of beliefs, even if they call it wrongaroonie. Of course, I wasn't saying a *belief* was wrong, but rather the statement If you believe A, you must also believe B, which is simply *factually* wrong. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 2/4/06 4:11 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? 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. The thing is, charlatans have been getting away with shit for millennia by claiming that they are above the requirements imposed on lesser men. Taxes are for the little people. - Leona Helmsley Yeah, and the greedy bitch did 18 months in the slam in her old age: http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal%5Fmind/scams/leona%5Fhelmsley/ 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
Great, thanks, I'll be more careful to stay out of the crossfire in the future. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I'm confused by your question (below). I merely made a statement that I enjoyed the term wrongaroonie and looked forward to the time I might be able to employ it myself. Oh, OK, I thought you were being sarcastic. I'm glad you liked it. I just don't think of it as anything out of the ordinary, I guess, perhaps because I use it a lot! Also I find it puzzling that Turquoise B. thought that the same compliment was somehow a statement re my absolute knowledge of right and wrong. He (correctly) interpreted your comment as positive, and anything positive said about me is reason for Barry to put down the person saying it. Perhaps you and he operate on some different wavelength of communication than myself. You could say that. ;-) Nevertheless, I still like the term and appreciate your use of it. No more, no less. Marek --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I just have to say that wrongaroonie is one of the best comebacks I've heard in a long time. I'll be using it from now on. Thanks. What confused you about it? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer fairfieldlife@ wrote: on 2/4/06 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bingo. You have just nailed the fatal flaw in Maharishi's model. To believe it is true, you have to believe that before enlightenment, one has free will, and that afterwards one does not. What *changed* in the operating system of the universe between unenlightenment and enlighten- ment? Did karma stop working? If one has a choice as to how to act before real- ization of enlightenment, one has the same choice afterwards. Those who claim otherwise are in my opinion trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. They may be avoiding this responsibility because they are up to no good, or they may be avoiding this responsibility because they honestly believe that God does everything, but it's the same bottom line. They wish their followers to cut them slack they would not extend to anyone else. I agree. The enlightened man driving his car makes the decisions necessary to navigate successfully through traffic and arrive at his destination. Why shouldn't other decisions be just as volitional and just as subject to dire consequences if they are made capriciously? Yup. My position on this is not really about Maharishi. It's just an observation I've come to after watching various spritual scenes for most of a lifetime. I really believe that the myth of the infallibility of the enlightened is one of the *worst* ideas in history, because of its ability to be abused. Teachers may start out very ethical, and trying their best to do things right, as they see right. But over time, there is *immense* pressure from the students to assume the mantle of infallibility. If the model taught to these students *reinforces* this belief in infallibility, sooner or later most teachers are going to fall back on it as an excuse to justify some unpopular decision that they have made or action they have performed. And then it all starts to do downhill from there. Personally, I really am in the camp of before enlight- enment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. I don't believe that there is *any* fundamental change that takes place after realization, except on the level *of* realization. I agree Same karma, same necessity to make judgements to the best of one's ability. snip Or, to put this in the framework of some people's enlightenment type experiences, sure you chop wood and carry water both before and after the Big E. The only difference is that after the Big E comes the knowledge that everything is happening by itself, on autopilot and in that case 2. no one does anything wrong since it all happens anyway and choice is a total illusion. Therefore (and this BIG) 3. the Enlightened make the same mistakes and right actions as the unenlightened. Why would their behavior improve if you use this model? And...4 The Enlightened know that they don't make mistakes, while the rest of us not yet enlightened blame ourselves as we wrangle over doing the moral thing. Maybe it is a question of how much sattva is there in the nervous system of any person, Enlightened or not? Of course, this means that MMY is not making any mistakes either - no matter how unkind or greedy the actions are - whew this is crazymaking stuff. The upshot is that for the unenlightened, we just keep on trying, even if it is an illusion that we have control. And part of that illusion is that it usually feels better to be around nice, funny people, honest people, kind people. There are enlightened rascals and unenlightened saints. I think the perfection that we are all looking for, living in a human nervous system, is way beyond enlightenement -I don't know what name you call it. Maybe it only manifests in Sat Yuga. But for here and now, we just have to keep it simple. I think the TMO hurts people and is dishonest while the technique is a good one. I would advise anyone to stay away from involvement with the TMO where money or lifeplans are involved. Thanks for a *very* sane post 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: snip Or, to put this in the framework of some people's enlightenment type experiences, sure you chop wood and carry water both before and after the Big E. The only difference is that after the Big E comes the knowledge that everything is happening by itself, on autopilot and in that case 2. no one does anything wrong since it all happens anyway and choice is a total illusion. Therefore (and this BIG) 3. the Enlightened make the same mistakes and right actions as the unenlightened. Why would their behavior improve if you use this model? And...4 The Enlightened know that they don't make mistakes, while the rest of us not yet enlightened blame ourselves as we wrangle over doing the moral thing. Maybe it is a question of how much sattva is there in the nervous system of any person, Enlightened or not? Of course, this means that MMY is not making any mistakes either - no matter how unkind or greedy the actions are - whew this is crazymaking stuff. The upshot is that for the unenlightened, we just keep on trying, even if it is an illusion that we have control. And part of that illusion is that it usually feels better to be around nice, funny people, honest people, kind people. There are enlightened rascals and unenlightened saints. I think the perfection that we are all looking for, living in a human nervous system, is way beyond enlightenement -I don't know what name you call it. Maybe it only manifests in Sat Yuga. But for here and now, we just have to keep it simple. I think the TMO hurts people and is dishonest while the technique is a good one. I would advise anyone to stay away from involvement with the TMO where money or lifeplans are involved. Thanks for a *very* sane post Boy, I'll say. (Somehow I missed this first time around.) Kudos, wayback! This goes in the Keeper file. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: I'd like to see any of these rationalizations hold up in court! I guess you must have missed Lawson's post saying: A perfectly valid attitude for someone enlightened, though you have to face the consquences regardless of your state of consciousness, if you are caught. Actually, a perfectly valid argument for someone enlightened [given the definition that MMY gives for enlightenment is correct]. Sal On Feb 4, 2006, at 9:32 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: 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.. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 2/3/06 3:30 PM, bbrigante at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Leon was arrested entering Switzerland, then he certainly did not pay a bribe, but a fine to the court. It's not impossible that if he was caught exiting Spain without declaring the money, That's what happened. that he did pay a bribe after being arrested, That too. Billy Clayton and Shannon Dickson flew to Madrid with a briefcase full of money which they handed over to some officials to get him out. I don't know why the officials didn't just take the money Leon was trying to smuggle. Maybe it was insufficient. Well, maybe insufficeint, but pocketing the original money would have been a problem for the bribe-happy Spanish officials, because there was a paper trail on the money they confiscated from Leon generated by the fact that they arrested him, and it would have either had to go on to trial or they would have had to return the money to Leon. By bringing in a new suitcase of money for the bribe, the officials just put the new loot in their pockets without issuing a receipt and then got a receipt from Leon or whoever when they returned the old money after dropping the charges in the interest of justice after a thorough investigation. but it's more likely that he would also have paid a legitimate fine to the Spanish court just as he would have in Switzerland (or the U.S., where penalties for failure to declare can be catastrophic -- they can seize all the money/etc not declared). The way I heard the story from Shannon, it didn't sound legitimate. Shannon didn't think it was. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, maybe insufficeint, but pocketing the original money would have been a problem for the bribe-happy Spanish officials, because there was a paper trail on the money they confiscated from Leon generated by the fact that they arrested him, and it would have either had to go on to trial or they would have had to return the money to Leon. By bringing in a new suitcase of money for the bribe, the officials just put the new loot in their pockets without issuing a receipt and then got a receipt from Leon or whoever when they returned the old money after dropping the charges in the interest of justice after a thorough | investigation. While true, it avoids the point of the discussion. The TM movement, which poses as proponents of and practitioners of Natural Law, was more than willing to smuggle money from country to country to avoid paying taxes and duties on it. I was personally asked several times during the time I worked for TM National in Los Angeles to smuggle suitcases of money from the US to Switzerland. I refused every time, *not* at the time because I was being moral but because I was more than aware that because of my hippy past and dossiers on me that existed with law-enforcement agencies I was the perfectly *wrong* person to do such a thing. What escaped me at the time was that the very thing I was being asked to do was bloody *wrong*, and that the organization that was asking me to do it was bloody *wrong* in *asking* me to do it. 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. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
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. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
on 2/3/06 4:49 PM, bbrigante at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That too. Billy Clayton and Shannon Dickson flew to Madrid with a briefcase full of money which they handed over to some officials to get him out. I don't know why the officials didn't just take the money Leon was trying to smuggle. Maybe it was insufficient. Well, maybe insufficeint, but pocketing the original money would have been a problem for the bribe-happy Spanish officials, because there was a paper trail on the money they confiscated from Leon generated by the fact that they arrested him, and it would have either had to go on to trial or they would have had to return the money to Leon. By bringing in a new suitcase of money for the bribe, the officials just put the new loot in their pockets without issuing a receipt and then got a receipt from Leon or whoever when they returned the old money after dropping the charges in the interest of justice after a thorough investigation. Sounds like an accurate assessment of the situation. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante no_reply@ wrote: Well, maybe insufficeint, but pocketing the original money would have been a problem for the bribe-happy Spanish officials, because there was a paper trail on the money they confiscated from Leon generated by the fact that they arrested him, and it would have either had to go on to trial or they would have had to return the money to Leon. By bringing in a new suitcase of money for the bribe, the officials just put the new loot in their pockets without issuing a receipt and then got a receipt from Leon or whoever when they returned the old money after dropping the charges in the interest of justice after a thorough | investigation. While true, it avoids the point of the discussion. The TM movement, which poses as proponents of and practitioners of Natural Law, was more than willing to smuggle money from country to country to avoid paying taxes and duties on it. You are not providing any documentation that there are taxes and duties due on money leaving/entering the countries in question. There are no taxes or duties due on money/other financial instruments leaving the USA, and if you can cite any such fees imposed by other countries, please be my guest. I am assuming that the TMO simply did not want to go through all the hassles involved with declaration, until I see some proof that there are fees involved. I was personally asked several times during the time I worked for TM National in Los Angeles to smuggle suitcases of money from the US to Switzerland. I refused every time, *not* at the time because I was being moral but because I was more than aware that because of my hippy past and dossiers on me that existed with law-enforcement agencies I was the perfectly *wrong* person to do such a thing. What escaped me at the time was that the very thing I was being asked to do was bloody *wrong*, and that the organization that was asking me to do it was bloody *wrong* in *asking* me to do it. 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. There is harmful wrong and harmless wrong. This failure to declare was harmless. There is a famous story from India about a monk sitting at a crossroads when a panicked man runs by. A few minutes later, some bandits who were chasing him ask the monk what direction the man went in. To tell the factual truth would have been wrong, because it would have brought harm, so the monk lied and sent the bandits down the wrong road. Whatever is life-supporting is right, regardless of the facts, whatever is life-damaging is wrong, regardless of the facts. Of course, since you are only interested in spewing your contempt for TMers, these considerations of situational ethics won't mean anything to you, but practical people who want to accomplish something in a world as completely twisted as this is sometimes have to sidestep the bureaucracy. If the TMO did cheat any government out of tax revenue, that might be seen to be some harm, but there is no evidence that any taxes or fees were in fact due, just the fact that the TMO dodged declaration, which is due upon leaving many countries, including the USA, even though no taxes or fees are due on such entries/exits: http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/money.xml 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Money Smuggling, was: Actually, there are far more qualityposts now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 2/3/06 3:30 PM, bbrigante at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Leon was arrested entering Switzerland, then he certainly did not pay a bribe, but a fine to the court. It's not impossible that if he was caught exiting Spain without declaring the money, That's what happened. that he did pay a bribe after being arrested, That too. Billy Clayton and Shannon Dickson flew to Madrid with a briefcase full of money which they handed over to some officials to get him out. I don't know why the officials didn't just take the money Leon was trying to smuggle. Maybe it was insufficient. but it's more likely that he would also have paid a legitimate fine to the Spanish court just as he would have in Switzerland (or the U.S., where penalties for failure to declare can be catastrophic -- they can seize all the money/etc not declared). The way I heard the story from Shannon, it didn't sound legitimate. Shannon didn't think it was. Smuggling money obviously isn't legitimate, but bribery was the usual way of handling court issues back then in Spain, or so I have gathered. 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/
