--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --- sparaig wrote:
> >
> > --- Gillam wrote:
> > >
> > > --- tom traynor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What ever they attempt is easy and
> > > > simple as it just flows. How it unfolds is not revelant.
> > > 
> > > So I may need to change my belief that Maharishi is 
> > > acting the way any entrepreneur would, expecting 
> > > his products and services to be lapped up by a hungry 
> > > public. If MMY were merely motivated by the entrepreneur's 
> > > certainty that his offering is great, he'd have given up when 
> > > it became evident that people didn't care. Instead, MMY has 
> > > all these plans whose unfolding is irrelevant, so he rolls out 
> > > plan after plan with no thought to actually making them happen.
> > 
> > Actually, the most sucessful entrepreneurs (unlike any ole one) do
> > that: throw out countless ideas until one "sticks."
> What I'm taking away from this conversation is, entrepreneurs 
> want their enterprises to succeed, but the enlightened just act, 
> without attachment to the result. 
> I was willing to ascribe Maharishi's cheerful pursuit of bad ideas 
> to the this-idea-can't-miss attitude I've seen in people launching 
> new products and services. I was incined to equate his behavior 
> to that I've seen in ordinary mortals, if you will -- the unenlightened.
> But now that I think about it -- or better yet, read other people's 
> thoughts, saving me the trouble of thinking on my own -- 
> Maharishi's steady supply of unrealistic plans and goofy optimism 
> sounds more like that of an enlightened person flowing with the 
> idea du jour than that of an entrepreneur lusting for the payoff.

Well, that is one way to look at it, probably more *enlightened* than
my view. 

I don't think Maharishi acts w/o attachement. I don't think all his
damning of democracy, acting petulant when world leaders won't listen
to his ideas, etc. are the acts of someone who is "non-attached." 

IMO this whole notion of non-attachment is merely a concept and who
knows if anyone here truly even understands it and even if they could,
could they really explain it in such a way that the listener would a)
be able to truly grok it and b) not be influenced by it to such a
degree that they would try emulating this non-attached state thinking
that by acting non-attached they actually were non-attached?

It all sounds like some ego-Olympics where those who think they get it
get to sound off and aggrandize themselves v. simply living the life.
>From my perspective, people living from this level would be much
simpler than all of what goes on here. 

But that may be/is just my own viewpoint.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to