--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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? > > > > I'm really not trying to be confrontational, I'm just > > soliciting opinions. I also think it's important to > > make the point that to say MMY screwed up assumes one > > believes he could have been successful, that TM could > > save the world, as I said, if properly administered. > > > > My *guess* is that it could, but I really can't say > > that I know for sure. I'm interested in what others > > think. > > Ok, if you really are soliciting opinion and > not trying to be confrontational with this, > I apologize for recent snipes at you. > > My opinion would be that we are back to discus- > sions the two of us have had in the past about > "the end justifies the means" vs. the Buddhist > "the means *are* the end."
OK, but that's a very different issue from the one I'm asking about. > In my opinion, it wouldn't *matter* if the goal > couldn't be reached, if it was forever out of > reach. It's the reaching, and the quality of > that reaching, that I think is important. Wouldn't matter to whom? > I honestly believe that how well one walks through > the world is far more important, kamically, than > whether one reaches one's intended destination. I don't really care one way or the other about MMY's karma, to be honest. > I'm not convinced that Maharishi has walked his > walk as well as he was capable of doing. > > But you are correct. That doesn't make him > a failure, merely human, like everybody else, > myself included. I don't think I said I thought not having done his best wouldn't make him a failure. Yes, we're all human and imperfect, but that doesn't negate the question of whether one has failed in a particular endeavor. But I think you've answered my original question: you think he failed (in my terms) whether or not TM, properly administered, could save the world (in other words, you don't know whether TM could save the world). ------------------------ 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/
