--- 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 in all they do and say. In the normal course of events it doesn't matter that much, we all have our things we're into, but MMY saying this guy was in UC and he then abusing the same sort of trust he inspired in others to do these unspeakable crimes just about wraps it up for me. I'm glad I kept my distance. And there shouldn't be anywhere for these people to hide. I hope, naively perhaps, there is still a thing called enlightenment where people do become and act morally perfectly because of supreme heart development and freedom from the ego, totally selfless etc. and thus whose actions are always supportive of growth and harmony but maybe we just haven't seen the like of it around for a while. I never met MMY so can't really judge but from watching tapes and hearing him on conference calls I didn't ever get any sort of buzz or feeling that I was in the presence of someone who had "got there". And I'm speaking as someone who only has a hazy notion of where "there" is, but when I saw the old B&W footage of GD I really did think there was something special in his demeanor, but perfect? Depends whose judging I guess, how much can anyone change and still be themselves? Perhaps enlightenement is a myth that says more about us than the gurus, that we'd like to think we are perfect inside and all we need is someone else to show us the way. Someone else to live in the woods, be celibate and return to save us. Role models we can aspire to and so we can say our problems are caused by not being "in tune" with nature. That actually seems quite likely to me, but what do I know? > 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? I think it best to treat it as possibly dangerous, even if only financially, crap until we have a way of judging these people better, and weeding out those that are only half-way up the mountain. I will continue to think the mountain worth climbing though, because once I've had a glimpse of a summit I can never turn back.
