--- In [email protected], "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> I agree with the sentiments and logic expressed below. Only MMY 
> doesn't plan at all - he seems to just react spontaneously to gut 
> feelings. The plan emerges from one such reaction to another but it 
> unfolds "unthinkingly". He can't logically justify decisions. 

That would certainly be my assessment of the man,
given the time I spent around him.

I think that he firmly believes in what he has
taught us, that at a certain point in one's 
evolution (CC and above) one's actions become 
perfectly aligned with the Laws of Nature, and 
that therefore one can do no harm.  One's actions 
after enlightenment are "100% life-supporting."

Sound familiar?  "100% life-supporting" is also 
the description given to TM.  As a result, did
anyone ever pay any attention to reports of 
negative physical or emotional reactions to TM?
I never saw anyone takes those reports seriously.
It was merely *assumed*, since TM *by defintion*
could do no harm, that no harm was done.  There
was a tendency to find some *other* explanation
for the Uncontrollable Twitching Group in Fiuggi
and other weirdass things that have happened
over the years.  The paradigm of "can do no harm"
and "100% life-supporting" is so universally 
believed that very few can even *conceive* that
TM might be causing negative reactions in a few
(very few) individuals.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that this paradigm
might not be true, either for TM or for the behavior
of the enlgihtened.  I believe that an enlightened
being *can* still fuck up and do harm.  I believe
that their behavior is NOT "by definition" 100% 
life-supporting.  

In my opinion, nothing changes after enlightenment.  
Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water; 
after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.  
Or as a good friend in Boulder once paraphrased it 
for modern monks, "Sport wood and carry condoms." :-)

If you believe that you're enlightened, and that
*by definition* your actions are 100% life-support-
ing, then why should you *have* to logically sup-
port your decisions?  And if your followers have 
been taught for decades that the very *definition*
of an enlightened teacher precludes any possibility 
of doing harm, well, they'll let the guy get away
with not logically supporting his decisions.  

Sounds like a fairly symbiotic (or codependent)
relationship to me.

Unc






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to