--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- authfriend wrote: > > > > --- Gillam wrote: > > > > > > --- authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Rick wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If ever the topic of women or sex came up, he would feign > > > > > ignorance, and would encourage single guys to be celibate, > > > > > like him. > > > > > > > > And you see this as hypocrisy? > > > > > > (Butting in) Looks that way to me. How would you > > > interpret it, Judy? Genuinely curious. I'm not good > > > at this sort of perception. > > > > Well, I wasn't there, obviously. But what the > > hell else could he say under the circumstances > > if he really thought the guys he was speaking to > > ought to be celibate for the sake of their > > evolution? > > > > I'm not condoning his illicit sexual behavior, > > given his position, but I'm not sure "hypocrisy" > > is the right term for what he told the guys. > > I see the nuance, and his conundrum. > > Given the lame nature of his relationships - > maybe 30 minutes of nooky time at the end > of the work day now and again - he probably > didn't perceive himself as being in a relationship. > I'm not trying to rationalize his behavior. I'm > just assuming he was able to rationalize it himself. > > I had a spell some years ago when I enjoyed a > cigar or two on the weekend. After about six > months of this, I was looking at an insurance > form that asked, "Have you used any tobacco > products in the past six months?" If so, I had > to pay the smoker's rate for insurance. At that > point I realized, "Oh my God. I'm a smoker." > Before that, I never thought of myself as a smoker. > It wasn't part of my identity. I was just enjoying > a cigar or two on the weekend. > > Maybe Maharishi had the same delusion I did. > Just as I thought I was essentially a non-smoker > even as I puffed away at my La Unicas, he was > able to think he was celibate when he dallying > with his gopis.
Certainly possible. What I had in mind was more that, assuming he genuinely thought it would be better for their spiritual development if they stayed celibate, introducing any potential cause for confusion over that instruction (How come he can and we can't? Is he really enlightened if he isn't celibate? etc. etc.) could inhibit their development, so he was essentially telling a lie for *their* benefit. Ends justifying the means and all that, clearly a rationalization and not the ideal we'd like to see by any means, but not hypocrisy per se. I wonder how often that kind of conundrum--not just about sex but any "bad" habit or behavior--masters have to deal with, pretending they don't indulge in that habit or behavior because they perceive (accurately or not) that to do otherwise would confuse their followers and get in the way of their sadhana. ------------------------ 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/
