--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on 6/4/05 2:28 PM, cardemaister at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > But maybe he needed that relative experience to be more effective > >> in the world? Maybe his nature, like that of most people, is not to > > be a > >> lifelong bramachari, yet his fame prevented him from making a > > lifestyle > >> switch. Maybe it just didn't matter at his stage of evolution? > > Maybe he was > >> a fallen yogi? > > > > Well, how about YS IV 7: > > > > karmaashuklaakRSNaM yoginas tri-vidham itareSaam. > > > > Taimni's translation: > > > > /Karmas/ are neither white nor black (neither good nor bad) > > in the case of /yogis/, they are of three kinds in the case > > of others. > > So this means that yogis can do whatever they want, and even though it may > appear bad from a relative perspective, they are untouched by it and are > entitled to do it. Right?
Whether or not this is what the translation is saying I sure hope you don't believe this would be true. An individual body means individual responsibility. This idea that after realization there is only Brahman desiring, therefore whatever the enlightened one does is really just the will of God, seems to be based on the idea that Brahman desires anything in the first place. Can that be? Individual responsibility is the cornerstone of individual life. Rick Carlstrom 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/
