I remember MMY talking about "free will" he said we have free will when we are no longer a "football" of life and our will becomes the will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes "Thy will be done," and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > As long as you are talking about an organization > > that believes to its core that an enlightened being > > is "in tune with the laws of nature" and that such > > an enlightened being cannot possibly perform "wrong > > action," then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that > > organization admitting publicly that anything it > > did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly > > enlightened leader* could have been anything less > > than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. > > As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't > the only one), this is a misinterpretation. > > There are two courses of action involved in > such a situation. One is the enlightened person > saying, "Do this," and the other is the folks > listening to him saying, "OK, I'll do that." > > It's entirely possible that the first was "right > action" and the second "wrong action." For all > we know, "right action" for those listening to > the enlightened person would be to say, "No, I > ain't gonna do that." > > Refusing to do it would not imply that the > enlightened person was wrong in the sense of > being "in tune with the laws of nature" for > having told them to do whatever it was, nor > would it necessarily make them wrong for not > doing it. > > For all we know, nature might "want" the > enlightened person to tell followers to do > something it would be wrong for them to do, the > whole "point," from nature's perspective, being > for them to realize it would be wrong and > decline to do it. > > Being a follower of an enlightened person, in > other words, does not relieve one of the > responsibility for making one's own decisions > about whether it's right or wrong for oneself > to do something, including doing what the > enlightened person asks. > > I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM > teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow > inevitably from the rest of his teaching about > the laws of nature and the enlightened person's > relationship to them. > > But then if you take it still further, you have > to wonder how it's possible for anybody ever to > do anything "against" the laws of nature. What > would that even mean, if the laws of nature are > all-encompassing? > > It seems to me the whole "laws of nature" bit, > as I suggested in an earlier post, is one of the > least-well-understood elements of what MMY taught, > and that he didn't do much of anything to clarify > it--possibly because he wanted us to figure it > out for ourselves. >
