--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Rick Archer <fairfieldlife@> > > wrote: > > > on 2/3/06 5:49 PM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > Even then (mid-70s), they had convinced themselves > > > > that they were so "in tune" with "Natural Law" that > > > > they had the right to violate actual law. > > > > > > I often got the feeling from Maharishi, and recent speeches > > > seem to reflect this, that he didn't have much respect for > > > the level of intelligence that formulated man-made laws. > > > He considered man-made laws legitimate and worthy > > > of his obedience to the degree that they conformed to > > > Natural Law, and he considered his own desires and intentions > > > to be a perfect expression of Natural Law. Thus, if a man- > > > made law didn't jibe with his desire, he considered it a > > > misguided hindrance to his higher purpose and had no qualms > > > about violating it. > > > > A perfectly valid attitude for someone enlightened... > > Is it? Or were you just *taught* that, by example?
Well, unless one were oneself enlightened, of course, the only way one would have that idea is if one heard it from someone or saw it in their behavior, right? So "Is it?" is a bogus question, unless you're assuming Lawson is enlightened. (BTW, "taught" in this and other similar contexts is a weasel word, selected for the purpose of loading the argument.) > Such behavior is, after all, *also* seen in megalo- > maniacs and in people with extreme narcissism. Is > it "valid" in their cases? I'd really like to hear > your answer to that question. Lawson specified that it was valid *in the case of someone who is enlightened*. Why should that also apply to megalomaniacs and people with extreme narcissism? It's another bogus question. > The thing is, charlatans have been getting away with > shit for millennia by claiming that they are "above" > the requirements imposed on "lesser" men. But are > they? Again, why should what applies to the enlightened, as specified by Lawson, be taken also to apply to charlatans? Nothing in what Lawson said suggests such a thing. > In Maharishi's case, he convinces people such > as Bob that he's in tune with something he calls > "Natural Law," which of course only he is evolved > enough to perceive and define. Because Bob has been > programmed to believe such declarations, he cuts > Maharishi a great deal of slack when he does things > that are questionable or even outright illegal. First, "programmed" is another weasel word chosen for the purpose of loading the argument. There are lots of reasons why people believe certain things, only one of which is that they have been "programmed" to believe them--as opposed to, say, making one's own observations, carefully reflecting on them on the basis of one's experience and understanding, and arriving at a conclusion based on those reflections. Second, MMY has made no such "declarations," at least not that I'm aware, nor has anyone here said he has. Impressions are what are being cited in this discussion. > But the tyrants and the narcissistic maniacs of the > world also took the same stand. *They* justified > their behavior by claiming they were "above" the law > and reported to a "higher authority." True enough. So the issue is whether one believes a person who does not act according to the law (remember, there are no "stands" or "claims" involved in MMY's case, just the impressions of others as to why he says and does certain things) is a tyrant or a narcissistic maniac, or a person who is enlightened. Lawson didn't offer an opinion on whether MMY was enlightened, of course. He said merely that *if* a person was enlightened, it was valid for them to consider themselves above the law. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that an enlightened person is *not* above the law. But the fact that tyrants and maniacs also claim they're above the law is not a sound basis for such a belief. In fact, it's irrelevant; it's a version of the guilt-by-association fallacy. > For me, the bottom line is that the moment anyone -- > anyone -- makes this claim, it's time to step back > and make a determination about whether you feel they > are sane. Well, of course it is, nor did Lawson say anything to the contrary, unless you assume that an enlightened person may also be insane (a whole 'nother can of worms). Otherwise, the determination is whether they're insane, or enlightened. I suspect no one here disagrees that if a person who makes such a claim is not enlightened, then they're very likely insane. (One possible factor, among others, in making such a determination might be whether the person in question actually makes a declaration that they are justified in breaking the law because they're enlightened. It seems to me that making an announcement to that effect would put some weight on the "insane" side--although, of course, *not* making that announcement wouldn't guarantee that they're not insane.) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
