[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? I don't rule it out. BUT: As I understand the premise (and have argued before a number of times), it has *NO* implications for the behavior of others. It does NOT mean, for example, that if someone who is enlightened tells you to do something, you should do it. It does NOT mean that if the enlightened person does Bad Things him/herself, you should accept them. This is where folks tend to get fouled up. The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. Those of us in ignorance shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. That's the piece that's ignorant, IMHO. This reminds me of the Crying Game and the scorpion and frog story characters told each other. The scorpion, who cannot swim, asks a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid the scorpion will sting him, but the scorpion reassures the frog that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown with the frog. The frog agrees and they start across the river. Half way across, the scorpion stings him, dooming the two to drown. When asked why, the scorpion explains, I'm a scorpion; it's my nature. Me, I am not willing to separate enlightenment from morality. If a person is claimed to be enlightened and then sexually abuses someone, I just don't believe that they are enlightened. I value goodness more than that. And I know too many abused children who were not in the position of being able to question the authority of the abuser. Maybe it was the abuser's nature, but if enlightenment does not change this nature, then screw it all, send me to the dirt. I do not want to be one with the pedophile.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have hit the nail right on it's head. You see, this is just an extension of the old Semitic religion's dogma.. Islam can do no wrong. The Koran can do no wrong. The Prophet can do no wrong. Ayatholla Khomeni can do no wrong. The Bible can do no wrong. Jesus can do no wrong. The Pope can do no wrong. The Catholic church can do no wrong. Israel can do no wrong..! etc etc etc I disagree. That's not what I was getting at in my post at all. That's a side issue. The more important issue IMO is that people who have chosen to believe that enlightenment is a state in which the enlightened can do no wrong are believing in it because they are IMO looking to be free of responsibility for their actions. They don't LIKE having to consider the effects of their thoughts and actions, and so they have bought into a world view that preaches that there is a point at which they never have to worry about responsibility ever again. *Someday* they will be enlightened, and at that point God or Nature or whatever will take over and run things for them, and everything they do will be perfect, and they can RELAX, secure in the knowledge that *everything* they do is perfect. THAT is the essential message of the dogma I am speaking about. THAT is what people who believe this message have bought into. They are working towards a point at which they can announce to the world -- as so many so-called enlightened have done before them -- What I say and do is *by definition* life-supporting and positive for all around me. My actions are *by definition* RIGHT. In other words, IMO they are looking (consciously or subconsciously) for other people to project onto them awe and authority, the *same* way they have projected those characteristics onto the people they consider enlightened. As evidence for my position (which could well be full of shit), I present the actions of innumerable claimants of the title of enlightened when their holy word is challenged or NOT reacted to with awe and submission to authority. Just look at how Maharishi has always reacted to those who don't do *exactly* what he tells them to do. Just look at how some of the claimants of enlighten- ment who have graced this forum have reacted when we perceived their presence as less than grace and their pronouncements as less than authoritative. One of my reasons for bringing up this subject in the first place was to see if anyone here (many if not most of whom still believe this dogma thoroughly) would try to come up with some intel- lectual reason FOR believing it. So far, no one has. They've talked around it, and made excuses for why the fact that they believe it has no practical impact on their lives, but no one has stepped up to the plate and defended the belief itself. I'm interested in whether anyone can. It's the most cherished, most fundamental, and least challenged piece of dogma in the arsenal of the dogma of enlightenment. NO ONE was ever *born* believing in the enlightened as being 100% in accord with the 'laws of nature' and thus in- capable of non-life-supporting acts. Someone TOLD them that this was how it works, and they chose to believe it. So, those of you who still do, WHY do you still choose to believe it? Can you present any arguments to support your belief? TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 06:59:55 - Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Most Dangerous Dogma ? It seems to me, watching the tales of Neil Patterson and Andy Rhymer appear again (not to mention the casual aside to Sai Baba, a Class-A pedophile in his own right), together with the ongoing exercises in solipsism that grace our FFL screens, that maybe it's time to examine a fundamental piece of TM dogma, the one that I personally think is most off, and one of the prime sources of all of these sad stories. It's not just a TM phenomenon, of course. This dogma mouldie oldie permeates many of the trad- itions of the East and their New Age offshoots. I've seen it be equally destructive in all of them, as have many other people, and yet no one ever seems to speak up about the dogma itself. The dogma in question is that the enlightened are perfectly in accord with the laws of nature, and thus can do no wrong. Their actions are *by definition* life-supporting. Think about the implications of accepting this dogma without question. It means that there is an end point to having to be concerned that one's own actions are right or wrong, a point at which one no longer has to even *think* about whether what they do or say is right or life-supporting. That's for lesser beings, the ones who haven't graduated to enlightened states of mind the way that they have. Once one is
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip One of my reasons for bringing up this subject in the first place was to see if anyone here (many if not most of whom still believe this dogma thoroughly) would try to come up with some intel- lectual reason FOR believing it. So far, no one has. They've talked around it, and made excuses for why the fact that they believe it has no practical impact on their lives, but no one has stepped up to the plate and defended the belief itself. I'm interested in whether anyone can. The problem is, you have your own idiosyncratic definition of it. You deliberately define it so as to be indefensible. More solipsism. The way you define it has nothing to do with the actual premise, which you clearly don't even understand, even after some of us have attempted to explain it to you.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
On May 18, 2008, at 1:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: So, those of you who still do, WHY do you still choose to believe it? Can you present any arguments to support your belief? Yes, I can, Barry. Because I say so. So there. :) Well, it works with my kids. Actually, it doesn't... Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip One of my reasons for bringing up this subject in the first place was to see if anyone here (many if not most of whom still believe this dogma thoroughly) would try to come up with some intel- lectual reason FOR believing it. So far, no one has. They've talked around it, and made excuses for why the fact that they believe it has no practical impact on their lives, but no one has stepped up to the plate and defended the belief itself. I'm interested in whether anyone can. The problem is, you have your own idiosyncratic definition of it. You deliberately define it so as to be indefensible. More solipsism. The way you define it has nothing to do with the actual premise, which you clearly don't even understand, even after some of us have attempted to explain it to you. Then do what you are best at -- correct my error. Present your own definition, covering both what in tune with the laws of nature means to other people *and* what it means to the enlightened themselves. *Can* the enlightened (assume they really are) rely on their spontaneous actions as being 100% life-supporting and in total accord with dharma or the laws of nature or positivity or sattva or whatever you want to call it? If so, what leads you to believe that this is true? You can appeal to authority if you want. Don't whine about the rules of the game not being to your liking. You try to set the rules for dis- cussions here all the time. Either play or don't. Give it your best shot. If not, sit back and allow the players to play. If it helps you to work up a good definition, even though I know it's not your normal style, pretend that I am Reeal Reeal Stpid and that you are much smarter than I am, and that you are trying to explain things to me one more time, out of compassion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip One of my reasons for bringing up this subject in the first place was to see if anyone here (many if not most of whom still believe this dogma thoroughly) would try to come up with some intel- lectual reason FOR believing it. So far, no one has. They've talked around it, and made excuses for why the fact that they believe it has no practical impact on their lives, but no one has stepped up to the plate and defended the belief itself. I'm interested in whether anyone can. The problem is, you have your own idiosyncratic definition of it. You deliberately define it so as to be indefensible. More solipsism. The way you define it has nothing to do with the actual premise, which you clearly don't even understand, even after some of us have attempted to explain it to you. Then do what you are best at -- correct my error. Already did that. Obviously you didn't get it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 18, 2008, at 1:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: So, those of you who still do, WHY do you still choose to believe it? Can you present any arguments to support your belief? Yes, I can, Barry. Because I say so. So there. :) Well, it works with my kids. Actually, it doesn't... But it *did* work with most of us. :-) Maharishi said so, and we just bought it. Go figure, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
TurquoiseB wrote: I'm a big fan of Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. This is one of the most famous 'circle jerk' statements in the enlightenment tradition. The problem is that you haven't defined the word 'enlightenment'. Until you define your terms, there will be nothing to dialog about - it's just a babbling solipsism. I don't believe that *anything* changes for the enlightened being, other than the realization of what had always already been present anyway. Here you have failed to define 'realization', so you are guilty of yet another 'circle jerk' an infinite regress. In addition, there is no 'change' - if there were, one thing could become another thing - an impossibility. Things only *appear* to change - it is an appearance only.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Because I say so. So there. :) TurquoiseB wrote: Maharishi said so, and we just bought it. Mabe it was you who 'bought it' to the tune of $50,000. So, why, exactly did you give all that money to Marshy and Rama if you didn't believe it? Go figure, eh? I'm still trying to figure out why you bought it. What happened to all the money?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Judy wrote: The problem is, you have your own idiosyncratic definition of it. You deliberately define it so as to be indefensible. More solipsism. The way you define it has nothing to do with the actual premise, which you clearly don't even understand, even after some of us have attempted to explain it to you. Turq wrote: Then do what you are best at -- correct my error. Present your own definition, covering both what in tune with the laws of nature means to other people *and* what it means to the enlightened themselves. *Can* the enlightened (assume they really are) rely on their spontaneous actions as being 100% life-supporting and in total accord with dharma or the laws of nature or positivity or sattva or whatever you want to call it? If so, what leads you to believe that this is true? You can appeal to authority if you want. Don't whine about the rules of the game not being to your liking. You try to set the rules for dis- cussions here all the time. Either play or don't. Give it your best shot. If not, sit back and allow the players to play. If it helps you to work up a good definition, even though I know it's not your normal style, pretend that I am Reeal Reeal Stpid and that you are much smarter than I am, and that you are trying to explain things to me one more time, out of compassion. 'According to the laws of nature' simply means the law of causation. If anyone attempts to argue against the laws of nature, cause and effect, they are going to have to be really smart. The laws of physics are difficult to refute - human excrement ALWAYS flows downstream; what goes, up must come down. A person who acts in accordance with the laws of nature is just a reasonable and wise person. Only an unenlightened person would stand on a hill and protest that he didn't exist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Entire Nation states, Corporate entities, Politicians and Organised Religions all try to be free of responsibility of their actions. So I don't understand what you disagree in this..?? With Great powers comes Great responsibilites. Theoriticaly, along with the big E comes Cosmic responsibility..?? If Maharishi is Cosmic, then he should take responsibility for the whole of Cosmos..?? TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 06:43:16 - Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ? I disagree. That's not what I was getting at in my post at all. That's a side issue. The more important issue IMO is that people who have chosen to believe that enlightenment is a state in which the enlightened can do no wrong are believing in it because they are IMO looking to be free of responsibility for their actions. They don't LIKE having to consider the effects of their thoughts and actions, and so they have bought into a world view that preaches that there is a point at which they never have to worry about responsibility ever again. *Someday* they will be enlightened, and at that point God or Nature or whatever will take over and run things for them, and everything they do will be perfect, and they can RELAX, secure in the knowledge that *everything* they do is perfect. THAT is the essential message of the dogma I am speaking about. THAT is what people who believe this message have bought into. They are working towards a point at which they can announce to the world -- as so many so-called enlightened have done before them -- What I say and do is *by definition* life-supporting and positive for all around me. My actions are *by definition* RIGHT. In other words, IMO they are looking (consciously or subconsciously) for other people to project onto them awe and authority, the *same* way they have projected those characteristics onto the people they consider enlightened. As evidence for my position (which could well be full of shit), I present the actions of innumerable claimants of the title of enlightened when their holy word is challenged or NOT reacted to with awe and submission to authority. Just look at how Maharishi has always reacted to those who don't do *exactly* what he tells them to do. Just look at how some of the claimants of enlighten- ment who have graced this forum have reacted when we perceived their presence as less than grace and their pronouncements as less than authoritative. One of my reasons for bringing up this subject in the first place was to see if anyone here (many if not most of whom still believe this dogma thoroughly) would try to come up with some intel- lectual reason FOR believing it. So far, no one has. They've talked around it, and made excuses for why the fact that they believe it has no practical impact on their lives, but no one has stepped up to the plate and defended the belief itself. I'm interested in whether anyone can. It's the most cherished, most fundamental, and least challenged piece of dogma in the arsenal of the dogma of enlightenment. NO ONE was ever *born* believing in the enlightened as being 100% in accord with the 'laws of nature' and thus in- capable of non-life-supporting acts. Someone TOLD them that this was how it works, and they chose to believe it. So, those of you who still do, WHY do you still choose to believe it? Can you present any arguments to support your belief? --- In Jason jedi_spock@ ... wrote: You have hit the nail right on it's head. You see, this is just an extension of the old Semitic religion's dogma.. Islam can do no wrong. The Koran can do no wrong. The Prophet can do no wrong. Ayatholla Khomeni can do no wrong. The Bible can do no wrong. Jesus can do no wrong. The Pope can do no wrong. The Catholic church can do no wrong. Israel can do no wrong..! etc etc etc
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The more important issue IMO is that people who have chosen to believe that enlightenment is a state in which the enlightened can do no wrong Can you define wrong action? I suggest that perhaps the underlying premise is hollow -- how can one act wrongly? Wrong is relative to any number of moral codes. I suggest, for sake of discussion, that there is no absolute right or wrong. There is only action and its consequences. Due to painful consequences some chose not to do somethings. Due to happy consequences some chose to do other things. Where is the right and wrong? In this context, right differs from correct. 2 + 2 = 4 (or whatever your want it to be sir if your are corporate accountant). 4 is the correct answer. However, 4 is not right in a moral sense. In the mega-Costco of life,Take what you want, but pay the pricen Another potentially false premise of the question is free-will. (And the absence of free-will does not require or imply determinism as the sole alternative.) If you don't control or initiate thoughts, and action stems from thoughts, where is the free will. I suggest all action is a set of 500-layer deep learned responses to various situations. No volition. One can only do what they have learned -- and for some innovation is one of those things. And of course the third premise I challenge is the concept and label of enlightenment. Some people are brighter, shinier, clearer than others. Some are all of this is some areas of life, but are in darkness in other areas. The label of enlightenment is a one big MF -- a bill of goods sold to the naive. So ... enlightenment is a state in which the enlightened can do no wrong -- hmmm, my take on your question is: a bogus conceptual state in which the deluded who have no real volition appear to act and other deluded ones falsely categorize those actions as right and wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
New wrote: And of course the third premise I challenge is the concept and label of enlightenment. The term enlightenment in South Asian literature is the liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth; the transcendence of phenomenal being; a state of higher consciousness, in which causation are understood as maya. In Adwaita, enlightenment is termed Moksha, the dispelling of illusions. In Buddhism, the doctrine of enlightenment is termed Nirvana, extinguishing the five aggregates from the cycle of rebirth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Morals are relative. They change from time to time. Ethics are eternal and absolute. They never change. Actions that bring suffering to others are wrong Actions that bring happiness to others are right Hindu philosophy calls those two actions as Shreyas that bring happiness and Preyas that bring suffering. new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 15:56:48 - Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ? Can you define wrong action? I suggest that perhaps the underlying premise is hollow -- how can one act wrongly? Wrong is relative to any number of moral codes. I suggest, for sake of discussion, that there is no absolute right or wrong. There is only action and its consequences. Due to painful consequences some chose not to do somethings. Due to happy consequences some chose to do other things. Where is the right and wrong? In this context, right differs from correct. 2 + 2 = 4 (or whatever your want it to be sir if your are corporate accountant). 4 is the correct answer. However, 4 is not right in a moral sense. In the mega-Costco of life,Take what you want, but pay the pricen Another potentially false premise of the question is free-will. (And the absence of free-will does not require or imply determinism as the sole alternative. ) If you don't control or initiate thoughts, and action stems from thoughts, where is the free will. I suggest all action is a set of 500-layer deep learned responses to various situations. No volition. One can only do what they have learned -- and for some innovation is one of those things. And of course the third premise I challenge is the concept and label of enlightenment. Some people are brighter, shinier, clearer than others. Some are all of this is some areas of life, but are in darkness in other areas. The label of enlightenment is a one big MF -- a bill of goods sold to the naive. So ... enlightenment is a state in which the enlightened can do no wrong -- hmmm, my take on your question is: a bogus conceptual state in which the deluded who have no real volition appear to act and other deluded ones falsely categorize those actions as right and wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? This is what I understand you to be explaining here. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? I don't rule it out. BUT: As I understand the premise (and have argued before a number of times), it has *NO* implications for the behavior of others. It does NOT mean, for example, that if someone who is enlightened tells you to do something, you should do it. It does NOT mean that if the enlightened person does Bad Things him/herself, you should accept them. This is where folks tend to get fouled up. The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. Those of us in ignorance shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. That's the piece that's ignorant, IMHO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? This is what I understand you to be explaining here. Yes, that's one possible scenario, if a rather simplistic one. But that's the basic idea. The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know what nature wants and why. The consequences and the reasons may be impossibly complex, or might not even resemble any sort of reasoning humans can grasp, let alone fitting the human notion of perfection. Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility for. Michael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the phrase spontaneous right action, the emphasis is on spontaneous, not right. The premise about enlightenment is that the enlightened person always acts spontaneously according to the dictates of nature, without mistakenly assuming authorship of his/her actions. But this is experiential; the person who isn't enlightened can't mood-make that he or she is not the author of his/her actions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? I don't rule it out. BUT: As I understand the premise (and have argued before a number of times), it has *NO* implications for the behavior of others. It does NOT mean, for example, that if someone who is enlightened tells you to do something, you should do it. It does NOT mean that if the enlightened person does Bad Things him/herself, you should accept them. This is where folks tend to get fouled up. The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. Those of us in ignorance shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. That's the piece that's ignorant, IMHO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
New.morn, Would you please repeat your post.?? new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 16:35:41 - Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ? Can you define wrong action? I suggest that perhaps the underlying premise is hollow -- how can one act wrongly? Wrong is relative to any number of moral codes. I suggest, for sake of discussion, that there is no absolute right or wrong. There is only action and its consequences. Due to painful consequences some chose not to do somethings. Due to happy consequences some chose to do other things. Where is the right and wrong? In this context, right differs from correct. 2 + 2 = 4 (or whatever your want it to be sir if your are corporate accountant). 4 is the correct answer. However, 4 is not right in a moral sense. In the mega-Costco of life,Take what you want, but pay the pricen Another potentially false premise of the question is free-will. (And the absence of free-will does not require or imply determinism as the sole alternative. ) If you don't control or initiate thoughts, and action stems from thoughts, where is the free will. I suggest all action is a set of 500-layer deep learned responses to various situations. No volition. One can only do what they have learned -- and for some innovation is one of those things. And of course the third premise I challenge is the concept and label of enlightenment. Some people are brighter, shinier, clearer than others. Some are all of this is some areas of life, but are in darkness in other areas. The label of enlightenment is a one big MF -- a bill of goods sold to the naive. So ... enlightenment is a state in which the enlightened can do no wrong -- hmmm, my take on your question is: a bogus conceptual state in which the deluded who have no real volition appear to act and other deluded ones falsely categorize those actions as right and wrong. Jason jedi_spock@ ... wrote: Morals are relative. They change from time to time. Ethics are eternal and absolute. They never change. Actions that bring suffering to others are wrong Actions that bring happiness to others are right Hindu philosophy calls those two actions as Shreyas that bring happiness and Preyas that bring suffering.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? This is what I understand you to be explaining here. Yes, that's one possible scenario, if a rather simplistic one. But that's the basic idea. The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know what nature wants and why. The consequences and the reasons may be impossibly complex, or might not even resemble any sort of reasoning humans can grasp, let alone fitting the human notion of perfection. Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility for. Michael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the phrase spontaneous right action, the emphasis is on spontaneous, not right. The premise about enlightenment is that the enlightened person always acts spontaneously according to the dictates of nature, without mistakenly assuming authorship of his/her actions. But this is experiential; the person who isn't enlightened can't mood-make that he or she is not the author of his/her actions. T'would seem that many of those who have claimed enlightenment have not been so constricted, and as a result have been able to moodmake that they were not the author of their actions very successfully, so convincingly that many weak- minded people actually believe it. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility for. Michael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the phrase spontaneous right action, the emphasis is on spontaneous, not right. The premise about enlightenment is that the enlightened person always acts spontaneously according to the dictates of nature, without mistakenly assuming authorship of his/her actions. If a president feels himself to be waging a war on behalf of God and don't take authorship for this war, he will get to heaven for so dutifully obeying God's will? Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know what nature wants and why. And its impossible to know what a granite boulder wants. Or maybe its a false premise to assume that the boulder or Nature wants anything. Or that Nature as a unified entity exists. Nature wants sounds like such great juice for manipulation. Anyone aware of other authoritarian or totalitarian regimes used this concept? Organized religion of course has used God's Will for centuries. As do numerous nation-states -- (our) God is on Our Side Nazi's had nature worship. Was Nature's Desires or Dictates a part of their propoganda? Marx had the inevitability of history -- sort of a Nature Wants perspective. The consequences and the reasons may be impossibly complex, or might not even resemble any sort of reasoning humans can grasp, let alone fitting the human notion of perfection. Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility for. I don't claim ownership for my actions. Yet if this clumsy body spills milk on the floor, I take responsibility and clean it up. Miatutchael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the p hrase spontaneous right action, the emphasis is on spontaneous, not right. The premise about enlightenment is that the enlightened person always acts spontaneously according to the dictates of nature, dictates of nature -- what a concept! without mistakenly assuming authorship of his/her actions. But this is experiential; the person who isn't enlightened can't mood-make that he or she is not the author of his/her actions. By your definition I and many are enlightened -- we realize the simple truth that free-will is an illusion and that we don't own, create, or do the actions that happen. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? I don't rule it out. BUT: As I understand the premise (and have argued before a number of times), it has *NO* implications for the behavior of others. It does NOT mean, for example, that if someone who is enlightened tells you to do something, you should do it. It does NOT mean that if the enlightened person does Bad Things him/herself, you should accept them. This is where folks tend to get fouled up. The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. Those of us in ignorance shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. That's the piece that's ignorant, IMHO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? This is what I understand you to be explaining here. Yes, that's one possible scenario, if a rather simplistic one. But that's the basic idea. The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know what nature wants and why. The consequences and the reasons may be impossibly complex, or might not even resemble any sort of reasoning humans can grasp, let alone fitting the human notion of perfection. Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility for. Michael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the phrase spontaneous right action, the emphasis is on spontaneous, not right. The premise about enlightenment is that the enlightened person always acts spontaneously according to the dictates of nature, without mistakenly assuming authorship of his/her actions. But this is experiential; the person who isn't enlightened can't mood-make that he or she is not the author of his/her actions. T'would seem that many of those who have claimed enlightenment have not been so constricted, and as a result have been able to moodmake that they were not the author of their actions very successfully, so convincingly that many weak- minded people actually believe it. :-) No surprise that t'would seem that way to you, given that you've closed your mind to the possibility that anybody could even have that experience, let alone to the possibility that it's true ontologically.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility for. Michael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the phrase spontaneous right action, the emphasis is on spontaneous, not right. The premise about enlightenment is that the enlightened person always acts spontaneously according to the dictates of nature, without mistakenly assuming authorship of his/her actions. If a president feels himself to be waging a war on behalf of God and don't take authorship for this war, he will get to heaven for so dutifully obeying God's will? If he takes authorship of obeyeing God's will in waging the war, he takes on its karmic consequences, according to the premise. Not assuming authorship isn't intellectual or emotional or a matter of belief, Irmeli, it's an experience of consciousness in which one is identified with the Self (which does not do anything) rather than the self.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? This is what I understand you to be explaining here. Yes, that's one possible scenario, if a rather simplistic one. But that's the basic idea. The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know what nature wants and why. The consequences and the reasons may be impossibly complex, or might not even resemble any sort of reasoning humans can grasp, let alone fitting the human notion of perfection. I think the problem here is why people in the TMO (I've not heard it anywhere else)think nature actually *wants* anything. What is meant by nature in this context? MMY meant Will of God when he said natural law. I'm a long way from being convinced that nature needs any sort God. Perhaps the reasons you may think are complex and beyond our grasp are simply appearing like this because they don't actually exist. God moves in mysterious ways? No, shit happens. Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility for. Michael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the phrase spontaneous right action, the emphasis is on spontaneous, not right. The premise about enlightenment is that the enlightened person always acts spontaneously according to the dictates of nature, without mistakenly assuming authorship of his/her actions. But this is experiential; the person who isn't enlightened can't mood-make that he or she is not the author of his/her actions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? I don't rule it out. BUT: As I understand the premise (and have argued before a number of times), it has *NO* implications for the behavior of others. It does NOT mean, for example, that if someone who is enlightened tells you to do something, you should do it. It does NOT mean that if the enlightened person does Bad Things him/herself, you should accept them. This is where folks tend to get fouled up. The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. Those of us in ignorance shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. That's the piece that's ignorant, IMHO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? This is what I understand you to be explaining here. Yes, that's one possible scenario, if a rather simplistic one. But that's the basic idea. The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know what nature wants and why. The consequences and the reasons may be impossibly complex, or might not even resemble any sort of reasoning humans can grasp, let alone fitting the human notion of perfection. I think the problem here is why people in the TMO (I've not heard it anywhere else)think nature actually *wants* anything. It's shorthand, Hugo, not meant literally (that's why the scare quotes, don'cha know). What is meant by nature in this context? MMY meant Will of God when he said natural law. I'm a long way from being convinced that nature needs any sort God. Perhaps the reasons you may think are complex and beyond our grasp are simply appearing like this because they don't actually exist. Certainly possible. (I've been explaining a premise, BTW, not taking a stand on whether it's true. I have no way of knowing.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? This is what I understand you to be explaining here. Yes, that's one possible scenario, if a rather simplistic one. But that's the basic idea. The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know what nature wants and why. The consequences and the reasons may be impossibly complex, or might not even resemble any sort of reasoning humans can grasp, let alone fitting the human notion of perfection. Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility for. Michael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the phrase spontaneous right action, the emphasis is on spontaneous, not right. The premise about enlightenment is that the enlightened person always acts spontaneously according to the dictates of nature, without mistakenly assuming authorship of his/her actions. But this is experiential; the person who isn't enlightened can't mood-make that he or she is not the author of his/her actions. T'would seem that many of those who have claimed enlightenment have not been so constricted, and as a result have been able to moodmake that they were not the author of their actions very successfully, so convincingly that many weak- minded people actually believe it. :-) No surprise that t'would seem that way to you, given that you've closed your mind to the possibility that anybody could even have that experience... I have *no problem* with people having had that experience. I've had it myself. It was a fleeting illusionary point of view which I blessedly got past quickly. Some have not been so lucky. :-) ...let alone to the possibility that it's true ontologically. I will recant my heresy and publicly embrace the idea that one is not the actor is true, ontologically or any other way, the moment you are able to prove its truth to me. I'll wait. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? This is what I understand you to be explaining here. Yes, that's one possible scenario, if a rather simplistic one. But that's the basic idea. The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know what nature wants and why. The consequences and the reasons may be impossibly complex, or might not even resemble any sort of reasoning humans can grasp, let alone fitting the human notion of perfection. I think the problem here is why people in the TMO (I've not heard it anywhere else)think nature actually *wants* anything. It's shorthand, Hugo, not meant literally (that's why the scare quotes, don'cha know). What is meant by nature in this context? MMY meant Will of God when he said natural law. I'm a long way from being convinced that nature needs any sort God. Perhaps the reasons you may think are complex and beyond our grasp are simply appearing like this because they don't actually exist. Certainly possible. (I've been explaining a premise, BTW, not taking a stand on whether it's true. I have no way of knowing.) Oh, OK, it's always bugged me about the TMO that's all. I think people often say it without thinking about what it really means, as I used to in fact. Then I sat down and pondered it, after someone asked me what natural law actually meant, and decided the meaning is too huge a leap of faith. For me anyway.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If he takes authorship of obeyeing God's will in waging the war, he takes on its karmic consequences, according to the premise. If a guru takes authorship of believing he is enlightened and that all his actions are life-supporting, then according to that line of reasoning, he will be karmically responsible for the fruits of his actions. Enlightenment is an elusive concept. The guru can have access to a high unity state consciousness, and at the same time be very low in many lines of development : morally, psychosexually,emotionally, in values etc. This is a very common combination in gurus who have come from the Eastern traditions to the west. And most probably this problem is very common in the East also, but it is not always so easy to expose those. Eastern people have not yet been able to question the morality of their gurus. So strong this belief is in those cultures. Basically access to unity consciousness can highly accelerate one's cognitive,moral, emotional, psychosexual etc.development. This isn't however often the case in people who believe strictly to this dogma. This belief gives a promise of a spiritual by-pass people dream of. It is rather heavy to work through one's shadow issues, question one's values and morals. But there is no development in those lines without that kind of work. I believe that without that belief the eastern gurus and hence also their followers would be spontaneously morally, emotionally, and psychosexually much more responsible persons. I personally don't consider a person enlightened if he/she is not spontaneously capable of responsible behavior of high standards. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip No surprise that t'would seem that way to you, given that you've closed your mind to the possibility that anybody could even have that experience... I have *no problem* with people having had that experience. I've had it myself. It was a fleeting illusionary point of view which I blessedly got past quickly. Some have not been so lucky. :-) ...let alone to the possibility that it's true ontologically. I will recant my heresy and publicly embrace the idea that one is not the actor is true, ontologically or any other way, the moment you are able to prove its truth to me. I'll wait. :-) Where did I suggest you should embrace the idea, publicly or privately? Read what I wrote again, please, and pay attention to the words this time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: If he takes authorship of obeyeing God's will in waging the war, he takes on its karmic consequences, according to the premise. If a guru takes authorship of believing he is enlightened and that all his actions are life-supporting, then according to that line of reasoning, he will be karmically responsible for the fruits of his actions. Yes, believing is an action in this sense. So if enlightenment is the experience that I do not act at all, obviously such a guru would not be enlightened.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
The dogma in question is that the enlightened are perfectly in accord with the laws of nature, and thus can do no wrong. Their actions are *by definition* life-supporting. Excellent observation Turq, Is about TM spiritual arrogance. `Improved moral thinking' is now one of the main points that improves with TM as John Hagelin lectured about the benefits of meditation at the David Lynch weekend. Also standard before that in his Grand Review of the Unified Field lecture series. Moral reasoning from the transcendent as it seems. Hopefully it comes from somewhere in a university that has no classes in the study of history, literature, the classics or moral philosophy. If anything, there was a culture of distain of cultural morality from MMY within the TMmovement; hence the spiritual arrogance. What is yet to come from Hagelin is a more complete in-depth discussion of `improved moral thinking' which might reconcile with the past we know. I think the problem is in the dogma. the enlightened are perfect and no longer have to worry about whether their actions are appropriate or not piece of dogma put this *assumption* that the actions of the enlightened are different -- and should be judged differently -- on the table for discussion here on Fairfield Life. Well, yes they do get judged differently thank God in the Unified Field for bringing the internet as help to us all in opening more rapidly our insight to the character of moral behavior in culture. They do stand as moral characters in culture git judged on earth, as they are in heaven. The guy was asocial in his culture and squandered an incredible opportunity. That is the history of moral progress. It is a good lesson. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me, watching the tales of Neil Patterson and Andy Rhymer appear again (not to mention the casual aside to Sai Baba, a Class-A pedophile in his own right), together with the ongoing exercises in solipsism that grace our FFL screens, that maybe it's time to examine a fundamental piece of TM dogma, the one that I personally think is most off, and one of the prime sources of all of these sad stories. It's not just a TM phenomenon, of course. This dogma mouldie oldie permeates many of the trad- itions of the East and their New Age offshoots. I've seen it be equally destructive in all of them, as have many other people, and yet no one ever seems to speak up about the dogma itself. The dogma in question is that the enlightened are perfectly in accord with the laws of nature, and thus can do no wrong. Their actions are *by definition* life-supporting. Think about the implications of accepting this dogma without question. It means that there is an end point to having to be concerned that one's own actions are right or wrong, a point at which one no longer has to even *think* about whether what they do or say is right or life-supporting. That's for lesser beings, the ones who haven't graduated to enlightened states of mind the way that they have. Once one is enlightened, they are so in tune with the laws of nature that they *never again* have to be concerned with their own actions and the effects of them. Those actions are *by definition* correct, and life-supporting. Once this piece of dogma sets its hooks in seekers, they seem willing to overlook ANYTHING in the people they consider enlightened. They can form the most amazing rationalizations for why the teacher they revere is really doing the right thing when he or she does things they would organize a mob to combat if other people did them. We've seen people on this forum excuse lying, illegal acts, extortion and worse when they were done by people they believe to be enlightened. And we've seen those who claim to be enlightened excuse their *own* actions with equal certainty. They don't even have to *listen* to feedback from others that these actions might be less than perfect, because they know that those actions cannot possibly be imperfect. They have subjective experiences that convince them that they are enlightened, and *by definition* the enlightened can do no wrong, so all these critics MUST *by def- inition* be incorrect. Since they are enlightened (or believe that they are), *anything* they do is *by definition* right. I think the problem is in the dogma. I think it's about time that this particular the enlightened are perfect and no longer have to worry about whether their actions are appropriate or not piece of dogma was flushed down the toilet forever. As far as I can tell (and as many traditions that I respect believe and teach), one NEVER achieves an end point in their self discovery where they no longer have to be concerned with whether their actions are correct or not. If anything, once they take upon themselves the
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me, watching the tales of Neil Patterson and Andy Rhymer appear again (not to mention the casual aside to Sai Baba, a Class-A pedophile in his own right), together with the ongoing exercises in solipsism that grace our FFL screens, that maybe it's time to examine a fundamental piece of TM dogma, the one that I personally think is most off, and one of the prime sources of all of these sad stories. It's not just a TM phenomenon, of course. This dogma mouldie oldie permeates many of the trad- itions of the East and their New Age offshoots. I've seen it be equally destructive in all of them, as have many other people, and yet no one ever seems to speak up about the dogma itself. The dogma in question is that the enlightened are perfectly in accord with the laws of nature, and thus can do no wrong. Their actions are *by definition* life-supporting. Think about the implications of accepting this dogma without question. It means that there is an end point to having to be concerned that one's own actions are right or wrong, a point at which one no longer has to even *think* about whether what they do or say is right or life-supporting. That's for lesser beings, the ones who haven't graduated to enlightened states of mind the way that they have. Once one is enlightened, they are so in tune with the laws of nature that they *never again* have to be concerned with their own actions and the effects of them. Those actions are *by definition* correct, and life-supporting. Once this piece of dogma sets its hooks in seekers, they seem willing to overlook ANYTHING in the people they consider enlightened. They can form the most amazing rationalizations for why the teacher they revere is really doing the right thing when he or she does things they would organize a mob to combat if other people did them. We've seen people on this forum excuse lying, illegal acts, extortion and worse when they were done by people they believe to be enlightened. And we've seen those who claim to be enlightened excuse their *own* actions with equal certainty. They don't even have to *listen* to feedback from others that these actions might be less than perfect, because they know that those actions cannot possibly be imperfect. They have subjective experiences that convince them that they are enlightened, and *by definition* the enlightened can do no wrong, so all these critics MUST *by def- inition* be incorrect. Since they are enlightened (or believe that they are), *anything* they do is *by definition* right. I think the problem is in the dogma. I think it's about time that this particular the enlightened are perfect and no longer have to worry about whether their actions are appropriate or not piece of dogma was flushed down the toilet forever. As far as I can tell (and as many traditions that I respect believe and teach), one NEVER achieves an end point in their self discovery where they no longer have to be concerned with whether their actions are correct or not. If anything, once they take upon themselves the mantle of I'm enlightened, they have to be *more* watchful of their own words and actions, and *more* aware of their possible repercussions. I'm a big fan of Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. I don't believe that *anything* changes for the enlightened being, other than the realization of what had always already been present anyway. The act of chopping wood after enlightenment requires the same care in not chopping off one's own (or someone else's) fingers as it did before enlightenment. I guess that I'm proposing that we put this *assumption* that the actions of the enlightened are different -- and should be judged differently -- on the table for discussion here on Fairfield Life. Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? It seems the more I think about it the less certain I am about what enlightenement is. I always found the idea that MMY was active at the source of the laws of nature a bizarre and dangerous idea, not because I thought he was bad but because someone with that sort of power over people could get away with anything. I've seen how people react when he speaks on conference calls, the sort of supplicant expression that comes over their whole being, and frankly I did find it scary that people could give up *themselves* and accept anothers POV so utterly. And after seeing MMY in action politically I could only be thankful that most world leaders never realised they could have peoples total trust
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? I don't rule it out. BUT: As I understand the premise (and have argued before a number of times), it has *NO* implications for the behavior of others. It does NOT mean, for example, that if someone who is enlightened tells you to do something, you should do it. It does NOT mean that if the enlightened person does Bad Things him/herself, you should accept them. This is where folks tend to get fouled up. The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. Those of us in ignorance shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. That's the piece that's ignorant, IMHO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Good show, Judy. I'm totally with you on this one and I'm glad you state the main points of that argument so well cuz I'm too busy to do it myself right now. God may have told some enlightened fart to shoot his neighbor and eat his heart raw in the market place, but that shouldn't keep anyone from incarcerating that same fart for life. And God, by the way, is only a manner of speaking in my book. --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? I don't rule it out. BUT: As I understand the premise (and have argued before a number of times), it has *NO* implications for the behavior of others. It does NOT mean, for example, that if someone who is enlightened tells you to do something, you should do it. It does NOT mean that if the enlightened person does Bad Things him/herself, you should accept them. This is where folks tend to get fouled up. The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. Those of us in ignorance shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. That's the piece that's ignorant, IMHO. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
You label it dogma and with the word, the label somhow feel you have already proven your point and it is dismissed, negated, and diminished. Your argument, your point is your bias. It of course is not a new TM concept that the enlighted are acting from the laws of nature and therefore acting without sin, but applicable to any path that will take you to unity. You try to diminish all paths. It has been said it takes a thief to catch a thief. Maybe you should wait until you are a thief to properly judge. Steve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me, watching the tales of Neil Patterson and Andy Rhymer appear again (not to mention the casual aside to Sai Baba, a Class-A pedophile in his own right), together with the ongoing exercises in solipsism that grace our FFL screens, that maybe it's time to examine a fundamental piece of TM dogma, the one that I personally think is most off, and one of the prime sources of all of these sad stories. It's not just a TM phenomenon, of course. This dogma mouldie oldie permeates many of the trad- itions of the East and their New Age offshoots. I've seen it be equally destructive in all of them, as have many other people, and yet no one ever seems to speak up about the dogma itself. The dogma in question is that the enlightened are perfectly in accord with the laws of nature, and thus can do no wrong. Their actions are *by definition* life-supporting. Think about the implications of accepting this dogma without question. It means that there is an end point to having to be concerned that one's own actions are right or wrong, a point at which one no longer has to even *think* about whether what they do or say is right or life-supporting. That's for lesser beings, the ones who haven't graduated to enlightened states of mind the way that they have. Once one is enlightened, they are so in tune with the laws of nature that they *never again* have to be concerned with their own actions and the effects of them. Those actions are *by definition* correct, and life-supporting. Once this piece of dogma sets its hooks in seekers, they seem willing to overlook ANYTHING in the people they consider enlightened. They can form the most amazing rationalizations for why the teacher they revere is really doing the right thing when he or she does things they would organize a mob to combat if other people did them. We've seen people on this forum excuse lying, illegal acts, extortion and worse when they were done by people they believe to be enlightened. And we've seen those who claim to be enlightened excuse their *own* actions with equal certainty. They don't even have to *listen* to feedback from others that these actions might be less than perfect, because they know that those actions cannot possibly be imperfect. They have subjective experiences that convince them that they are enlightened, and *by definition* the enlightened can do no wrong, so all these critics MUST *by def- inition* be incorrect. Since they are enlightened (or believe that they are), *anything* they do is *by definition* right. I think the problem is in the dogma. I think it's about time that this particular the enlightened are perfect and no longer have to worry about whether their actions are appropriate or not piece of dogma was flushed down the toilet forever. As far as I can tell (and as many traditions that I respect believe and teach), one NEVER achieves an end point in their self discovery where they no longer have to be concerned with whether their actions are correct or not. If anything, once they take upon themselves the mantle of I'm enlightened, they have to be *more* watchful of their own words and actions, and *more* aware of their possible repercussions. I'm a big fan of Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. I don't believe that *anything* changes for the enlightened being, other than the realization of what had always already been present anyway. The act of chopping wood after enlightenment requires the same care in not chopping off one's own (or someone else's) fingers as it did before enlightenment. I guess that I'm proposing that we put this *assumption* that the actions of the enlightened are different -- and should be judged differently -- on the table for discussion here on Fairfield Life. Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. Since Curtis is collecting diagrams -- and btw, a collection of such would make a great book-- can we have a diagram showing how any relative thing, like actions, can be perfect? Even if one was an anthropormorphic deist, neither Zeus and Appllo, or Shiva and Varuna would agree in each instance that something was perfect. How can something be perfect-- in a universal sense -- if not all agree?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
`Improved moral thinking' is now one of the main points that improves with TM as J ohn Hagelin lectured about the benefits of meditation at the David Lynch weekend. Also standard before that in his Grand Review of the Unified Field lecture series. Moral reasoning from the transcendent as it seems. How is Johnny H banging young coeds in the vedic observatory -- undoubltedly after some you are near E, and one more thrust may push you into ecstatic eternal bliss lines, different from Andy using similar lines on young boys? (homophobia?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. Since Curtis is collecting diagrams -- and btw, a collection of such would make a great book-- can we have a diagram showing how any relative thing, like actions, can be perfect? I can't wait to tell Maria you feel this way and steal her back from you. http://image59.webshots.com/559/5/92/47/2859592470100251969WasYrs_fs.jpg I rest my case. Even if one was an anthropormorphic deist, neither Zeus and Appllo, or Shiva and Varuna would agree in each instance that something was perfect. How can something be perfect-- in a universal sense -- if not all agree?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Better link. http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2859592470100251969WasYrs There are so many things that are perfect in this picture I have lost count. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. Since Curtis is collecting diagrams -- and btw, a collection of such would make a great book-- can we have a diagram showing how any relative thing, like actions, can be perfect? I can't wait to tell Maria you feel this way and steal her back from you. http://image59.webshots.com/559/5/92/47/2859592470100251969WasYrs_fs.jpg I rest my case. Even if one was an anthropormorphic deist, neither Zeus and Appllo, or Shiva and Varuna would agree in each instance that something was perfect. How can something be perfect-- in a universal sense -- if not all agree?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Better link. http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2859592470100251969WasYrs There are so many things that are perfect in this picture I have lost count. I am more partial to this particular perfection. Hillary Swank, shot by Annie Liebowitz for Vanity Fair: http://entertain.teenee.com/paparuzzi/img3/m121113.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? you assume that Rhymer and Paterson are enlightened. Boy are you in for a surprise. I agree with you that our growth never stops, for anyone, no matter where they are on the spiritual continuum. On the other hand there is a distinct, significant and unmistakable phase transition that occurs instantaneously when someone slips into enlightenment. As to the two yokels you are using to support your statements here, don't even bother.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems the more I think about it the less certain I am about what enlightenement is. Maybe you are onto something there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? you assume that Rhymer and Paterson are enlightened. Boy are you in for a surprise. I don't think that either of them were any more enlightened than you are. I don't believe for a moment that Maharishi was enlightened. The whole subject is about what people believe *about* enlightenment, not about any particular person who claims or claimed enlightenment. Interesting that you missed the entire point of the post. I notice also that your *first* reaction to Andy's name coming up was to deny that *he* was enlightened. But you never, even for a moment, questioned your belief that the enlightened (and I think we have to remember here that in your mind this includes YOU) are perfect, and can do nothing that is harmful or contrary to the laws of nature. I am suggesting that the ONLY reason you believe this of the enlightened is that you were told it by Maharishi or his teachers. And you never once in your life chose to use your critical faculties and actually *think* about this piece of dogma to see if it made any sense. Part of the reason I made the post in the first place was to see who was so attached to the idea of the enlightened being perfect that they would lose it and get all defensive, or attack me for having put that idea on the table for discussion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Well said, Judy, and this relates to Jim's premise/experience regarding the perfection of what is. One's own sense of right and wrong, the individual's aspirations and achievements, our apparent successes and perceived failures, they are all part of the mix. Even those times in our lives when many of us chose to surrender our critical judgment in order to tune our minds to the mind of the guru -- it all works together in this particular soup we're in. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? I don't rule it out. BUT: As I understand the premise (and have argued before a number of times), it has *NO* implications for the behavior of others. It does NOT mean, for example, that if someone who is enlightened tells you to do something, you should do it. It does NOT mean that if the enlightened person does Bad Things him/herself, you should accept them. This is where folks tend to get fouled up. The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. Those of us in ignorance shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. That's the piece that's ignorant, IMHO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? you assume that Rhymer and Paterson are enlightened. Boy are you in for a surprise. I don't think that either of them were any more enlightened than you are. I don't believe for a moment that Maharishi was enlightened. The whole subject is about what people believe *about* enlightenment, not about any particular person who claims or claimed enlightenment. Interesting that you missed the entire point of the post. I notice also that your *first* reaction to Andy's name coming up was to deny that *he* was enlightened. But you never, even for a moment, questioned your belief that the enlightened (and I think we have to remember here that in your mind this includes YOU) are perfect, and can do nothing that is harmful or contrary to the laws of nature. I am suggesting that the ONLY reason you believe this of the enlightened is that you were told it by Maharishi or his teachers. And you never once in your life chose to use your critical faculties and actually *think* about this piece of dogma to see if it made any sense. Part of the reason I made the post in the first place was to see who was so attached to the idea of the enlightened being perfect that they would lose it and get all defensive, or attack me for having put that idea on the table for discussion. Here is yet another non-losing it, non-defensive, non-attacking response from me: Perfection is relative. You are asking the wrong question. The question isn't whether an enlightened person is perfect, it is rather whether or not each of our ideas of enlightened behavior assumes perfection once we ourselves achieve an enlightened state. This of course cannot be answered until we ourselves have had that phase transition experience, at which time any answer to the question for the general population is irrelevant. Its all about doing the work yourself Barry vs. extrapolating off someone else's experience, as you are attempting to do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? I don't rule it out. BUT: As I understand the premise (and have argued before a number of times), it has *NO* implications for the behavior of others. It does NOT mean, for example, that if someone who is enlightened tells you to do something, you should do it. It does NOT mean that if the enlightened person does Bad Things him/herself, you should accept them. This is where folks tend to get fouled up. The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. Those of us in ignorance shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. That's the piece that's ignorant, IMHO. Brilliant!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. Not an argument of this, but an exploration. If Nature is perfect (a premise of some, and some statements), wanting implies some lack of fulfillment. If this is the case, why would a desire by an unfulfilled Nature be perfect. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. If we accept this speculation, then why not accept other speculation? On what grounds is the above speculation more useful than or as true as, Nature wants me to do this and Nature does not want you to be outraged when I do it. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; I can second guess, or not accept any dogma that I choose to. you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. As, I suppose, is their so-called, so self-defined enlightenment. Why not keep ones subjective view,and labels to oneself? Its only relevant to them. Those of us in ignorance What do you mean we, kimosobe? shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. So why even bring it up, or discuss it. Its like the color of my pee this morning. Not really relevant to anyone else, so I don't bring it up. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. And like all dogma should be left to rot where it stands, and not played in like a pile of manure -- posing as a pristine sandbox. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. Two dogmas don't make a right. Humping dogmas only produce cute cuddly puppy dogmas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Sexual deviants such as pedophiles often have history of being sexually abused in childhood. This might even be one of the last remaining samskaras that has to dissolve. However, they should seek help to get these removed from their system. Pedolphilia (the condition, not the behavior) is incurable as far as modern medical science is concerned. If you mean spiritual help, that may be a different story. Is there any evidence of pedophiles having been cured of their disorder by spiritual means?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. Not an argument of this, but an exploration. If Nature is perfect (a premise of some, and some statements), wanting implies some lack of fulfillment. If this is the case, why would a desire by an unfulfilled Nature be perfect. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. If we accept this speculation, then why not accept other speculation? On what grounds is the above speculation more useful than or as true as, Nature wants me to do this and Nature does not want you to be outraged when I do it. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; I can second guess, or not accept any dogma that I choose to. you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. As, I suppose, is their so-called, so self-defined enlightenment. Why not keep ones subjective view,and labels to oneself? Its only relevant to them. Those of us in ignorance What do you mean we, kimosobe? shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. So why even bring it up, or discuss it. Its like the color of my pee this morning. Not really relevant to anyone else, so I don't bring it up. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. And like all dogma should be left to rot where it stands, and not played in like a pile of manure -- posing as a pristine sandbox. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. Two dogmas don't make a right. Humping dogmas only produce cute cuddly puppy dogmas. ...Judy wrote this...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly, Bhairitu. Sexual deviancy is a disease just like cancer. If a person can have cancer and be enlightened (and I submit they can), then a person can suffer from this disease also. And, as Judy has pointed out, Andy's behavior, though reprehensible, does not make him a pedophile. A sixteen-year old is deemed competent under the law to give informed consent. Depends on the locality; in some places it's older, in other places younger. More importantly, the inability of a child to give informed consent has nothing to do with whether a predator is a pedophile or not. It isn't preying sexually on a child under the age of consent that makes an adult a pedophile; it's preying sexually on a child who has not reached puberty. (More precisely, pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubertal children, whether it's ever acted on or not. It's possible for a person to be a pedophile without ever committing an act of pedophilia.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Yes. I knew such a man. A decent poet who was a member of my workshop. --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly, Bhairitu. Sexual deviancy is a disease just like cancer. If a person can have cancer and be enlightened (and I submit they can), then a person can suffer from this disease also. And, as Judy has pointed out, Andy's behavior, though reprehensible, does not make him a pedophile. A sixteen-year old is deemed competent under the law to give informed consent. Depends on the locality; in some places it's older, in other places younger. More importantly, the inability of a child to give informed consent has nothing to do with whether a predator is a pedophile or not. It isn't preying sexually on a child under the age of consent that makes an adult a pedophile; it's preying sexually on a child who has not reached puberty. (More precisely, pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubertal children, whether it's ever acted on or not. It's possible for a person to be a pedophile without ever committing an act of pedophilia.) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Comments (more exploration) interleaved [in brackets]: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. Not an argument of this, but an exploration. If Nature is perfect (a premise of some, and some statements), wanting implies some lack of fulfillment. If this is the case, why would a desire by an unfulfilled Nature be perfect. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. [Judy's use of quotation marks around the word want answers the point you raise, inasmuch as the term want when applied to Nature is actually inapplicable because how could a closed system ever have a lack of anything. Having said that, I acknowledge my presumption that the universe *is* a closed system; however, at least for purposes of this exploration, the universe any of us inhabit as human beings is closed enough to use that presumption. But to continue, why does a ball roll downhill, or water or wind moves from high-pressure to low-pressure, for that matter? Aren't gravity and thermodynamics just different words for Nature's desire for things to go in a certain direction, a certain flow? When you flushed the toilet this morning after noting the color of your pee, which way did the pee water turn going down -- clockwise or counter-clockwise -- and why? Isn't it just in the nature of things to happen the way they happen? And our apparent participation in events -- isn't it just another chunk of potato in the soup bumping around with the other vegetables as it roils on the stovetop?] Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. If we accept this speculation, then why not accept other speculation? On what grounds is the above speculation more useful than or as true as, Nature wants me to do this and Nature does not want you to be outraged when I do it. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; I can second guess, or not accept any dogma that I choose to. you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. As, I suppose, is their so-called, so self-defined enlightenment. Why not keep ones subjective view,and labels to oneself? Its only relevant to them. Those of us in ignorance What do you mean we, kimosobe? shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. So why even bring it up, or discuss it. Its like the color of my pee this morning. Not really relevant to anyone else, so I don't bring it up. [The relevance in bringing up the whole premise of Enlightenment is to note the pattern of the flow in a person's life. However, I agree that at some point it is totally meaningless to use the term enlightenment to describe anyone, though the term awake doesn't carry the same hoity-toitiness for me -- it conveys a more gentle sense of awareness. The problem for us may be that we were exposed to -- and indoctrinated in -- the idea that Enlightenment was a goal where we were not at yet, but through required and ongoing tutelage of an ever-evolving system of new techniques and courses, developed or revealed and authorized by a distant guru and administered through cadres of ever more questionable lieutenants and lackeys we would arrive at a place that seemed to make less and less sense with each passing year and with each new petal of knowledge unfolded. For myself, and many here (as far as I can tell), relinquishing the goal has proved to be far more satisfying and fulfilling than striving for it; and far more consonant with the original sense of it. If I've let go of the goal, is that a form of sanyama? I had it in my awareness for so long, and now it seems long gone and all for the better.] And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. And like all dogma should be left to rot where it stands, and not played in like a pile of manure -- posing as a pristine sandbox. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Sexual deviants such as pedophiles often have history of being sexually abused in childhood. This might even be one of the last remaining samskaras that has to dissolve. However, they should seek help to get these removed from their system. Pedolphilia (the condition, not the behavior) is incurable as far as modern medical science is concerned. If you mean spiritual help, that may be a different story. Is there any evidence of pedophiles having been cured of their disorder by spiritual means? It would be an imprint so it should be removable. You just need to know how to get to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The age of consent in Iowa is 14, and it is a law that is often abused by the criminal justice system as it criminalizes childhood sexuality. Well, there you have it. 14 as the age of consent in Iowa is probably the lowest in the nation. This fact was probably not lost on Andy who, I will suspect did not engage in actual sexual activity with any child younger than this. According to accounts, his m-o, would be to gather several kid for a post seminar session, and then excuse all but one or two of the kids. The kids he kept were most likely 14 or over, and thus the burden of proof would be difficult to achieve, since he could just claim that the child was a consenting adult under the law. To my mind this explains a lot of things, one being, why no formal charges seem ever to have been filed against him. Seems Andy had it down pat. The only hurdle he had to get past was a wide eyed parent (s) who bought into his spiel.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: inasmuch as the term want when applied to Nature is actually inapplicable because how could a closed system ever have a lack of anything. Thus, it would follow, Brahman lacks and desires nothing. It is, to borrow a phrase, perfect. But to continue, why does a ball roll downhill, or water or wind moves from high-pressure to low-pressure, for that matter? Aren't gravity and thermodynamics just different words for Nature's desire for things to go in a certain direction, a certain flow? Only in a most poetic sense. What entity is desiring? (Nature: I really really want that ball to go down hill. Yaaah, look its going down hill. Now lets see it go uphill. Phoooey, it won't go uphill) And what if Nature was busy peeing when I placed the ball on a hill. And forgot to desire for it to go down hill. What then? (Aside from a LOT of pee). When you flushed the toilet this morning after noting the color of your pee, which way did the pee water turn going down -- clockwise or counter-clockwise -- and why? Isn't it just in the nature of things to happen the way they happen? That is Nature's nature. Nature being a poetic description of the way things work -- not (necessarily) an Entity. Of course you may be thinking of God when you say Nature. But tooting about what God's Will is seems both problematic and at times dangerous. (However, discussing what God's Willie is like, now THATS interesting. And makes statements like the world is fucked come to life.) And our apparent participation in events -- isn't it just another chunk of potato in the soup bumping around with the other vegetables as it roils on the stovetop?] Nice chicken soup for the soul. I do (as do you -- ((but probably ONLY us)), act 100% in accord with Nature. When I pee it eventually hits the ground -- and doesn't fly up and hit the clouds. When I cut myself I bleed. When I eat an apple, (that has fallen to the ground and not towards the sun) I digest it into fruit sugars, polyphenols, and such and not into gold. WOW,I am SO phenomenol! How, pray tell, can I not be 100% in accord with Nature? Further on this angle, I don't act. I do Nothing!. Nature does it all. From generating thoughts, to creating desires, to responding to things in learned ways. So not only am I 100% in accord with Nature, I am not the doer. Some, with vivid but quite limited imaginations, claim this to be living as a puppet, with Nature or God holding the strings, acting out a predestined script. I disagree. [The relevance in bringing up the whole premise of Enlightenment is to note the pattern of the flow in a person's life. What is the distinction. EVERYONES life is 100% according to the laws of Nature. What life flows differently than that? The problem for us may be that we were exposed to -- and indoctrinated in -- the idea that Enlightenment was a goal where we were not at yet, but through required and ongoing tutelage of an ever-evolving system of new techniques and courses, developed or revealed and authorized by a distant guru and administered through cadres of ever more questionable lieutenants and lackeys we would arrive at a place that seemed to make less and less sense with each passing year and with each new petal of knowledge unfolded. What is Awakening and what is the Goal? For myself, and many here (as far as I can tell), relinquishing the goal has proved to be far more satisfying and fulfilling than striving for it; and far more consonant with the original sense of it. Desiring really really hard for the desireless state has always cracked me up. If I've let go of the goal, is that a form of sanyama? Thats an interesting idea.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: The age of consent in Iowa is 14, and it is a law that is often abused by the criminal justice system as it criminalizes childhood sexuality. Well, there you have it. 14 as the age of consent in Iowa is probably the lowest in the nation. Actually, it's 16, unless the adult is five years or less older than the child, in which case it's 14 or 15.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
You have hit the nail right on it's head. You see, this is just an extension of the old Semitic religion's dogma.. Islam can do no wrong. The Koran can do no wrong. The Prophet can do no wrong. Ayatholla Khomeni can do no wrong. The Bible can do no wrong. Jesus can do no wrong. The Pope can do no wrong. The Catholic church can do no wrong. Israel can do no wrong..! etc etc etc TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 06:59:55 - Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Most Dangerous Dogma ? It seems to me, watching the tales of Neil Patterson and Andy Rhymer appear again (not to mention the casual aside to Sai Baba, a Class-A pedophile in his own right), together with the ongoing exercises in solipsism that grace our FFL screens, that maybe it's time to examine a fundamental piece of TM dogma, the one that I personally think is most off, and one of the prime sources of all of these sad stories. It's not just a TM phenomenon, of course. This dogma mouldie oldie permeates many of the trad- itions of the East and their New Age offshoots. I've seen it be equally destructive in all of them, as have many other people, and yet no one ever seems to speak up about the dogma itself. The dogma in question is that the enlightened are perfectly in accord with the laws of nature, and thus can do no wrong. Their actions are *by definition* life-supporting. Think about the implications of accepting this dogma without question. It means that there is an end point to having to be concerned that one's own actions are right or wrong, a point at which one no longer has to even *think* about whether what they do or say is right or life-supporting. That's for lesser beings, the ones who haven't graduated to enlightened states of mind the way that they have. Once one is enlightened, they are so in tune with the laws of nature that they *never again* have to be concerned with their own actions and the effects of them. Those actions are *by definition* correct, and life-supporting. Once this piece of dogma sets its hooks in seekers, they seem willing to overlook ANYTHING in the people they consider enlightened. They can form the most amazing rationalizations for why the teacher they revere is really doing the right thing when he or she does things they would organize a mob to combat if other people did them. We've seen people on this forum excuse lying, illegal acts, extortion and worse when they were done by people they believe to be enlightened. And we've seen those who claim to be enlightened excuse their *own* actions with equal certainty. They don't even have to *listen* to feedback from others that these actions might be less than perfect, because they know that those actions cannot possibly be imperfect. They have subjective experiences that convince them that they are enlightened, and *by definition* the enlightened can do no wrong, so all these critics MUST *by def- inition* be incorrect. Since they are enlightened (or believe that they are), *anything* they do is *by definition* right. I think the problem is in the dogma. I think it's about time that this particular the enlightened are perfect and no longer have to worry about whether their actions are appropriate or not piece of dogma was flushed down the toilet forever. As far as I can tell (and as many traditions that I respect believe and teach), one NEVER achieves an end point in their self discovery where they no longer have to be concerned with whether their actions are correct or not. If anything, once they take upon themselves the mantle of I'm enlightened, they have to be *more* watchful of their own words and actions, and *more* aware of their possible repercussions. I'm a big fan of Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. I don't believe that *anything* changes for the enlightened being, other than the realization of what had always already been present anyway. The act of chopping wood after enlightenment requires the same care in not chopping off one's own (or someone else's) fingers as it did before enlightenment. I guess that I'm proposing that we put this *assumption* that the actions of the enlightened are different -- and should be judged differently -- on the table for discussion here on Fairfield Life. Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: The age of consent in Iowa is 14, and it is a law that is often abused by the criminal justice system as it criminalizes childhood sexuality. Well, there you have it. 14 as the age of consent in Iowa is probably the lowest in the nation. Actually, it's 16, unless the adult is five years or less older than the child, in which case it's 14 or 15. I've also read/heard that the age of consent only determines whether one can be charged in criminal court; apparently, a parent or guardian can still file suit in civil court, even though the sexual activity was consensual and legal. There's also the federal law that makes it a crime to cross state lines in order to have sex with a minor.
