--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 'Nature' is a fallacy. This teaching is the bane of religious ethics
and morality. The same issue was used by Hitler and is a mainstay of
all megalomaniacs to allow them to issue any fatwa that they wish. 

I don't think we should give up on it so fast.  I mean what if we
could use it in a more limited context.  Like we could say , "I was
going to take out the trash but nature wanted me to watch TV."

I don't think we should use it for lipstick stains on collors.  For
that I suggest the " mistake of the intellect" line.  As in "honey
lets not make a mistake of the intellect and conclude that this shade
is your hot best friend's."
It may be in our best interest to use this, not for large scale evil,
but just to give a dude a break around the house once in a while.





> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: curtisdeltablues 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:21 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
> 
> 
> "The enlightened person,
> according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make
> mistakes *from nature's "perspective"*; but it's
> entirely possible for nature to "want" the
> enlightened person to make a mistake, for
> nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to
> nudge the person's followers into using their
> own judgment)."
> 
> I could never get this excuse to fly when I was married.  How does he
> pull this off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" <coshlnx@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.
> > 
> > Just to clarify the context, it had to do with
> > whether what MMY teaches is internally consistent,
> > not whether what he teaches is "true."
> > 
> >  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.
> > 
> > It's the second part of this that causes the
> > most trouble, IMO.  At least (again) in the context
> > of what MMY teaches, the dictum that enlightened
> > people "don't make mistakes" is frequently
> > misunderstood (and MMY hasn't done a whole lot
> > to clarify it).  The enlightened person,
> > according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make
> > mistakes *from nature's "perspective"*; but it's
> > entirely possible for nature to "want" the
> > enlightened person to make a mistake, for
> > nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to
> > nudge the person's followers into using their
> > own judgment).
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/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/
 


Reply via email to