thx, I fully agree. On the Gunas doing actions (and not some Guru); the error in such Marshy-talk would be that:
(a) since the Self - unmanifest aspect of Brahman - is not a "Doer", being transcendental to cause and effect, then (b) the doer must be the Gunas, (but!): (c) The conventional body-mind of the Guru in question is composed of the Gunas interacting with the elements and components of what makes up a conventional person, will being one such component along the the organs of action. (d) Since MMY's body-mind along with will is an expression of the Gunas, if we say "The Gunas did it", that includes the Guru's body-mind (being composed of the Gunas). (e) as a result of the above, we are left trying to figure out "which" Gunas along with a will performed the actions; (clearly an impossible task since this is an example of "karma is unfathomable"); and there is no distinct boundary between the actions of a person and the environment in the holographic model. (f) the net result - back to square one in finding out the "who" of actions, in which case we must resort to common sense, the available tools of science, and decision making without the excess baggage of Advaita and Neo-A which does nothing whatsoever to enhance our knowledge of responsibility and doership. (g) there's no evidence that wrt the question of "who" done-it and responsibility; that adding the model of Advaita makes any difference in answering such questions. http://www.fantasygallery.net/gutierrez/art_4_Prince-Derek-and-Queen-Serenity.html --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Michael Flatley" <untilbeyond@> wrote: > > > > Do you see him as a charlatan? > > > > Your assessment is that money was VERY important to him. > > > > If that's true, then every time he said he didn't care > > about money, then it was a lie, and personal integrity > > meant very little to him. > > You asked this of Vaj, Michael, but I'll answer, > from my own perspective. > > I don't see Maharishi as a charlatan, because that > word to me connotes "conscious awareness of deceit." > My honest impression of Maharishi is that he did not > have the ability to self-assess, and thus determine > that he was *possibly* being deceitful. > > My assessment of him is that he just acted, assuming > that it would be correct. Lying would be just as > natural to him as telling the truth, because both > would be spontaneous, and thus (in his view), the > will of Nature or the three gunas or whatever. > > I don't happen to agree with his view. I think that > his actions were completely the result of his own > decisions and his own will, not "Nature's" or "the > three gunas'," and that he bears all the responsi- > bility for the results of those actions. >
