--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > on 2/4/06 9:32 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> > > >> ONLY if you buy the definition of enlightenment that > > >> Maharishi peddles. That's my point. His definition > > >> is that the enlightened can do no wrong. > > > > > > There have been people in FF who have claimed to be enlightened or > > > intuitively gifted and have set themselves up as financial > > > advisors, losing > > > large sums of money for their naïve clients. > > >> > > >> He has *allowed* people in his organization to believe > > >> that he is enlightened for 40 years now. He has also > > >> defined enlightenment as being unable to do wrong. > > >> Therefore, he has carefully *allowed* everyone to > > >> believe that he can do no wrong. If he had *not* > > >> intended to convey this impression, he could have > > >> stated outright that he was not enlightened, or that > > >> he makes mistakes; neither has happened. > > > > > > I've heard him admit mistakes a few times. Once was in > Switzerland > > > in front > > > of the entire International Staff. I got up and asked him why he > > > told us to > > > go to bed early and then kept us all up so late. He said he was > > > wrong to do > > > that, and we all got on an early to bed routine for several > months > > > after > > > that. Also, Jennifer said that Maharishi told her the death of > the > > > boy on > > > the beach in Mallorca was karmic retribution for the mistakes he > > > was making > > > (presumably with her). > > > > That lecture you downloaded yesterday, the section on > enlightenment > > and assholes, touches nicely on this topic and how people (e.g. > Adi > > Da, Chogyam Trungpa) use it to commit the most unethical acts. As > Ken > > put's it rather nicely, while ethics are insufficient for > > enlightenment, you will not be able to sustain enlightenment > without > > them. As Eros (universal love) expands, Ethos (ethical behavior) > > naturally follows. Otherwise "the dream" (Maya) becomes the > nightmare > > and objects in consciousness (sense objects) become troublesome > > rather than inert. > > > > But if Ethos naturally follows, then that's just what MMY claims > inthe first place. Whether or not MMY himself is ethical or > enlightened or whatever, is a different question.
Precisely. As reported by Vaj here, Wilber's statement is contradictory: If Ethos naturally follows enlightenment, it isn't something the enlightened person must *strive* to maintain in order to sustain enlightenment. ------------------------ 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/
