--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > This is one of those examples where Maharishi's lack of philosophy > > training becomes problematic. > > Beg to differ... what "training" falsifies that idea? I don't see it.
Training in the contradictory dilemmas caused by taking each position. It is an unresolved issue in philosophy. It is mostly used as a way to train philosophical reasoning but the question itself is not answered by saying "the guy is in UC." People without training in philosophy tend to have an unwarranted confidence in their philosophical arguments without out knowing that more brilliant minds than theirs have been over this ground already. Studying philosophy gives you a sense of humility about human knowledge. It takes away some of the glib summations of perennial questions which have no definite solutions because much of what it deals with is unknown to humans. (even ones who wear special clothes) > > > If you can only act in accord with a > > predetermined program, then that is not FREE! > > Yes, but that may be just "semantics"? They are defined with opposite values. > > I suppose if you followed Spinoza, you might argue that "there is no > free will". But you could (perhaps!) argue that the deep realisation > of that fact in itself changes your behaviour. Which creates a sort of> paradox I suppose (as in quantum mechanics where the act of > observation changes the nature of the observed). I think I see MMY's > position as along those lines (I think!) You lost me when you used the physics poetry but Spinoza represents one aspect of this argument. My point is that today we have the benefit of both arguments for human free will and determinism and now educate people can't make a glib statement that it is resolved, which Maharishi attempted to do with his higher states model. > > > He seemed happy to just > > put out contradictory statements as profundities instead of admitting > > that the philosophical problem of free will and determinism is not > > solved by being in some super state of consciousness. It remains a > > contradiction and humans really don't know if they are acting freely > > or are the puppets of intergalactic children who just got the new > > "Earthlings" Wii program for their planet's advanced wireless computer > > game's Milky Way edition. (I am sooo going back on my meds after I > > post this.) > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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. > > > > > > > > > >
