"This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi > [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to > this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, > interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and > misunderstanding what the guru says."
I am pretty sure we got this idea about his state from him. I don't think it is assumptive on our part. If you treat him in any way other then as " enlightened master" you are quickly escorted out of the room. It is not assumed, it is enforced. --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "coshlnx" <coshlnx@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > wrote: > > > > However, there could be a good deal of semantic > > > > ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > In other words: Does he have the ability to want to > > > > do siddhis on demand, independently of what nature > > > > "wants"? > > > > > > > If he is enlightened, then what nature wants and what he does > are > > > the same thing; indistinguishable. > > > > This is speculation, not a trace of evidence for it. Equally > > speculative but not as much based on flawed authorities like MMY > > would be the statement that among the unenlightened, and the E'd, > > there are varying degrees of "what nature wants". <snip> Please, > no "MMY said so" - therefore it must be true!. > > This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi > [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to > this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, > interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and > misunderstanding what the guru says. > > Another point to make for you: argue for your limitations and they > are yours. > > > > > That is one of the completely different ways of functioning of > an > > > enlightened person. Before enlightenment, it is all intention > based > > > on ego, which is not a bad thing, just a lot harder. > > > > > > After enlightenment, there is not much ownership, it is just > easier > > > to do what nature wants because it is easiest to support nature, > > and > > > in turn nature supports us. I know it sounds crazy, but it is > > simply > > > the way it is. So intention exists, and desires exist and > dedicated > > > thought and action exist, but supported by nature. It is just > > easier. > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/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/
