--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Then answer this: > > > 1. Are you assuming Maharishi screwed up? > > > > I honestly don't know. Seems to me that to say MMY > > screwed up, you first have to assume that TM *could* > > save the world if it were properly administered, and > > that's really what I'm trying to get at. > > > > If TM *could* save the world, then it looks to me > > like he's screwed up. If it couldn't, then what > > would he have screwed up? The question wouldn't > > make any sense in that case.>>> > > Ok, so you don't know if he screwed up or not, or if TM could save > the world or not. ???
Right. > > > 2. If so, what rational did he have for doing so? > > > > Er, one doesn't usually have a rationale for screwing > > up; it tends to be unintentional.>>> > > Only to the unenlightened. The co-existence of opposites is > perfectly feasible in the enlightened mind. This is the Enigma of > Maharishi that Rick often speaks of. I don't get it, sorry. Could you be more specific? > > > 3. If he didn't screw up on any level, should we therefore > > > worry about anything, or even care? > > > > I don't think we can know for sure whether he screwed > > up, given that the course of action is unfathomable. > > But even if we could know for sure that he didn't, I > > don't understand the rest of your question. Could you > > elaborate?>>> > > Hypothesis #1 (not a proven fact): Maharishi could have saved the > world. He didn't make any mistakes. Therefore...no worries right? Still not getting it. If he didn't make any mistakes, then he *is* saving the world, isn't he? > Hypothesis #2 (not a proven fact): Maharishi could have saved the > world. He made mistakes. Therefore...he (not you or I) screwed up? I'd say in that case we all did. > Hypothesis #3 (not a proven fact): Maharishi could not have saved > the world, and wether intentionally or not misled people? I'd go along with that, but I'm pretty sure he didn't intentionally mislead people. > Hypothesis# 4 (proven fact) TM is too expensive for this age of > ignorance, but Maharhishi doesn't give a crap. > > Hypothesis# 5 The course of action is unfathomable: Then why didn't > he just say that? Instead of that thing about hiding behind the > logic of "the world's karma and world leader's are poisoned by > drugs theory" Could that have been what he had in mind when he used the term "hiding"? In other words, it's logical, but meaningless in the cosmic scheme of things? I think you may have put your finger on it. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
