--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <waybac...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@>
> Exactly, he was The Master. I think the confusion that his advances must > have caused would be more than if a professor or therapist suggested having > sex. MMY was God and supposed to be celibate. What a genuine shock it must > have been. In addition, if such behavior on his part resulted in a young > girl's "losing faith" or giving up spiritual pursuits, well that is really a > shame. MMY always said that initiators needed to be extra careful in their > behavior, because the laws of karma were somehow harsher on those who had > more knowledge. He was supposed to be at the top of the heap - so you wonder > if he believed his own words and worried about the results of his actions on > others and even himself. No being sarcastic, but you raise a paradox in this whole thing -- different levels of knowledge and values. If one says MMY had higher knowledge (than us presumably) and he did something he thought right, or at least OK, then we would be in the dark about the rightness of the actions and would not don't have a basis to judge or second guess him. OTOH, If he has a lower state of knowledge, inferior to our modern understanding of sexual harrassment, proper etiquete for a guru, etc, then we would have nothing or little to gain from him -- why would it be a problem or struggle to tell this inferior knowledge or ethically valued person off -- what is there to lose? We can't say he had superior knowledge, and we sought it -- but no wait, our knowledge is superior but we still want his knowledge. It doesn't add up. The ashes and caskets of of gurus up and down the Ganges are doubled over in laughter.
