MMY never claimed to be enlightened. In fact, if you follow his exposition in the SCI tapes that the world's consciousness doesn't allow for people to become fully enlightened at this time to its logical conclusion, you'll realize that he was saying that neither he NOR Gurudev were fully enlightened.
Of course, it is always possible that if you had pointed that out to him, he would have insisted that Gurudev was an exception, but I'm OK with MMY having blind spots about things, just like everyone else does. And of course, there are countless ways in which he could be partly/totally right and still wrong in equally many ways. The universe is a vastly complicated place, afterall... L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened. But can he or she fly? > > > > > > Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to > > > enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be > > > able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? Are > > > humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to look > > > at? > > > > Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity > > Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at will, > > was fooling themselves. > > > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis > > program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you > > can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your > > own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, > > you certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment." > > > > This is similar to the check for being in full-blown CC: you may have 24 > > hour/day witnessing, but unless your meditation period leads you into > > transcending for the entire period, every time, you can be certain that you > > are not fully in CC. > > Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...haven't you learned yet that > "Maharishisez" is only valid when it agrees with some- > thing that one of his supposed followers WANTS to believe? :-) > > Thus Robin will still keep claiming that he was in UC, > and Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC, and others will > keep claiming whatever it is that their out-of-control > egos claim, regardless of what Maharishi said about it. > And gullibleniks like JohnR will keep claiming that MMY > could fly, even though neither he nor anyone else ever > saw it happen. > > Personally, I don't think that Maharishi's "definitions" > of ANYTHING are accurate, but it always amazes me that > those who claim *to* believe that they are can be so > willing to disregard them any time they want to claim > something else that makes *them* seem more self important. > > And it's all Maharishi's fault. After all, *HE* was the > one who taught them for decades that the ultimate "test" > of reality was one's subjective experience. As a result, > they'll write Maharishi off as "uninformed" as easily as > they'll write off objective reality. > > As for Ann's comment, the Fred Lenz - Rama guy *could* > levitate, full hanging-there-in-mid-air-in-the-same-way- > that-a-brick-doesn't stuff. Hundreds of people saw him > do it, often in public lectures full of non-students who > witnessed this. Does that make him enlightened? > > A lot of people did. I was never one of them, although > I certainly witnessed this myself. I always believed > what Maharishi *used* to say, back in the early days of > his teachings, that there was *no relationship whatsoever* > between the ability to perform siddhis and being enlight- > ened. Apples and oranges. The only thing that ever led > me to even suspect that Rama might have had some enlight- > enment of some kind going for him was what it was like > to meditate with him. As you stated above in your comment > about CC, that experience was just pure, thoughtless > silence. That was never my experience during the few > times Maharishi ever meditated with us; quite the > opposite, in fact. > > Good to see you're still hanging in there, Lawson, and > still making good sense from time to time. Also good to > see that you're avoiding the Standard Cult Response > that so many here rely on -- reacting to some criticism > of MMY or TM or the TMO that they cannot counter intel- > lectually or rationally by playing Demonize The Critic. > > Do they think that no one *notices* that they do this, > while never addressing the criticisms that pushed their > buttons? Go figure. :-) >
