--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <wg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > perhaps after > > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > > said so!! > > > > > > > > > > > > He did. > > > > > > > > MMY: "I'm a normal human being" > > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > > human > > > > being" > > > > > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > > > > Nice to hear, it looks like Bevan didn't believe him! > > > > > > How can you read such utter nonsense out of this ? The "hard rocks of > > ignorance" I suppose. > > Bevan was flabbagasterd about MMY's statement since we all looked to > > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a > > normal human being" > > > > Please get a checking. > > Depends on how you define normal, most people would think normal to be > the average Joe on the street. It seems in this context however MMY > meant being enlightened is normal which is how HE would define normal. > > So which was it? Was MMY defining himself as a mere human (the context > I was using) or an Enlightened Being? >
Both. In the Age of Enlightenment enlightened souls will be considered "normal". He thus set a new standard.
