--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> 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.
>
Good point - it is a paradox either way you look at it. It all gets too
complicaed for me when people assume that a guru has more information about the
effects of behavior and so we should just accept it - even when we would not
feel conmfortable with or even condemn the same behavior is a "regular" person.
I think it a slippery slope to give certain people as "pass' when they hurt
others or go against basic societal standards. I understand and somewhat agree
with your positions about how our laws may evolve, and that current laws and
standards are not necessarily so great. But I still don't like giving gurus so
much of a benefit of the doubt. Having said that, and having assumed for the
last 30 years that MMY did engage in this sexual stuff, I still do TM, had a
great time in the TMO, and admire lots about him and the knowledge he gave us.
But the money and sex stuff was simply money and sex stuff - not so great IMO.
I would not admire it in anyone.
