From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
--- In [email protected] <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <rick@...> wrote: > > From: [email protected] <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> ] > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:55 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals > --- In [email protected] <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "danfriedman2002" > <danfriedman2002@> wrote: > > > > This is now the second instance where the facts provided by this > non-Member are questioned. > > > > Rick, wouldn't it just make more sense to provide attribution? Do your > Sources need to be protected? > > > > More transparency, please. > > You must be joking ! Rick's motto is the wilder the rumor the better, at > least if it aims at a saint. > No transparency please ! > > So says Nabby, whose real name none of us know, and who delights in stories > of UFOs (which I happen to believe in myself), mysterious world saviors, > etc. The difference is ofcourse that I'm here to answer any kind of question about my posts you might have. That's true. Contrary to your "friends" who are free to pass on any rumor under the motto "The wilder the better" if it goes against a saint. The one I just posted wasn't wild, nor was it against MMY. Just some info about how the movement might feel about selling his stuff. Don't get me wrong. I believe in the idea of saints, if by saints you mean people with an extraordinarily highly developed consciousness. By that definition, MMY was one in my book. But where it gets interesting, or confusing, is when there's substantial, credible evidence that these saints have done things you wouldn't expect a saint to do, if you expect saintliness to include high moral development. I say "interesting or confusing" because MMY taught that consciousness and morality were correlated, and the common definition of "saint" includes moral purity. But then morality is largely a cultural norm, and who's to say it rests on universal principles? Anyway, I respect your choice to avoid taking an honest look at this evidence, in order to maintain your innocent view of these matters. To me, it seems like you have blinders on, but hey, so did I, for decades, so why shouldn't you, as long as you want or need to? If you ever decide to take them off, you may find that a broader view of the world makes life more interesting, even if it raises questions to which there are no easy answers. That helps to cultivate an appreciation for mystery, and what the Zen folks call "don't know mind".
