--- In [email protected], Shain McVay <shainm307@...> wrote: > > I acually think that people play with sin...
Define sin. I'll wait. :-) > ...otherwise we'd have nothing to do, so maybe being as > "nice" as possible isn't good for everyone. However from > what I noticed in life, it brings good nature support > just by doing good deeds. So I'm sure all gurus play with > sin, and i'm sure they all play differntly. Just because > a guru has bad traits doesn't mean he isn't enlightened. I think the issue for TMers here is that the very definition of enlightenment proposed to us by Maharishi declared that it was impossible for an enlightened being to have bad traits. According to him, they couldn't possibly be "bad" because their actions were (again, by definition) in accord with the Laws Of Nature. For the record, I'm down with the possibility of someone being enlightened (by many traditions' definitions of enlightened) and having bad traits. I'm also down with them being classically enlight- ened and crazy as a fuckin' loon. I think Maharishi's definition of what it is to be enlightened is the problem. It's a fantasy IMO, one that has little to do with the actuality of enlightenment. Then again, I think of enlightenment as a purely subjective phenomenon, one possibly without any measurable effect on the external world. > ________________________________ > From: turquoiseb <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:29 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness > is creativity. > > --- In [email protected], Ellis Nelson <himalayaspencerellis@> > wrote: > > > > I can see how consciousness informs existence and at that > > level a further refinement is found through creativity. > > It reminds me of the Perfect Man in Sufism who manifests > > through his preparedness (if I understand that correctly). > > While I understand that such theoretical discussions > interest some, I tend to avoid them because my experience > tells me that they're *completely* theoretical. Have you > ever met a human being who you feel significantly affected > the world around them through nothing more than the mech- > anism of his or her consciousness? I have not, and have > come to believe that it's a myth, a sales pitch touting > the theoretical benefits *to others* of attaining supposed > higher states of consciousness, whereas in actuality there > are no such benefits. > > It's not (because you are new here, and probably don't > know where I stand on such issues) that I disbelieve > in what people have called enlightenment or higher > states of consciousness in the past. Been there, done > that, worn the T-shirt, and then thrown it away. It's > just that I've come to believe that these are completely > *subjective* states of mind that do not affect others, > *except* in the same way that any of us affects others, > through our thoughts and actions. > > While it may "feel good" subjectively to be in these > states, I do not hold that to be of as much value as > "doing good" for others in one's thoughts and actions. > I've met supposed masters who claimed to be (and > obviously believed it thoroughly themselves) that they > were fully enlightened, but were real pricks. They > treated people badly. If this is either enlightenment > or a "higher" state of consciousness, color me not > interested in it. > > In other words, the idea of the "Perfect Man," whether > it be a Sufi formulation of it or a Buddhist one or a > Hindu one or any other flavor of one, just doesn't > float my boat. I don't believe that any such perfection > has ever existed. Give me someone who just tries con- > sistently to be a little better each day anytime. From > what I've seen, believing that one has attained a level > at which this trying is no longer necessary is almost > always followed by the believer demonstrating that they > needed to try more than most people, not less. >
