--- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- 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 just > > 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 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/
