--- I disagree.  Speculating on which actions are Dharmic, whether in
E'd or non-E'd people is all speculative; and due to the paradoxes of
Brahman and the possibility of getting embroiled in circulatory
"Advaita-speak"; we are left with making wholly commonsense, logical,
(experiential and theoretical when appropriate) conclusions about the
nature of actions; some of which can be evaluated using standard
academic, scientific tools.  There's no need to nitpick on the nature
of science or what's common sense.  There are obvious disagreements
and that's the nature of life.
 The point is, that trying to figure out right vs wrong, Dharmic vs
a-Dharmic is an unsolvable conundrum when placed into the context of
what we "think" E'd people vs non-E'd people are doing; (if consistent
with Dharma or not).
 Dharma AND karma are mutually inclusive, along with karma; and are
both ultimately unfathomable.
 We are left with common sense decisions, "AS IF" everybody were
totally ignorant, or totally E'd. It's all the same, in regard to
subjects out of one's field.  Of course, an E'd person can sometimes
speak volumes on the nature of E'ment, or like Ramana Maharshi,
"speak" volumes by remaining in complete silence. 
 For example, an E'd person may render an opinion on ecomomics or
politics; but have little expertise in those fields.  The fact that
she's E'd should not influence our evaluation of the matter in common
sense usage and in the proper context. E'd may carry little or no
weight in terms of relative "rightness"; and in fact, there may be
much "truthiness" (what people may FEEL or WANT to be right). Bill
O'Reilly uses this term often. (I disagree with most of his opinions
but his characterizations of "truthiness" usage is somewhat amusing).
 By the same token, E'd people have their share of truthiness.
In a nutshell, MMY has his own opinions on politics and economics, but
the fact that he's E'd (probably), means nothing to me in evaluating
the content of his statements.
  Bill O'Reilly says "The spin stops here".

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor"
> <matrixmonitor@> wrote:
> >
> > ---There's no evidence that even Unenlightened people are not doing
> > everything as tools of Brahman. 
> Yes.
> And further, there is no evidence that Brahman i) has tools (something
> independent of Brahman) ii) uses them (performs action and iii) or has
> any plan to which to "tool towards". 
> Brahman with action, tools and plans is a notion and "insight"
> contrary to what shankara "saw" and expounded -- and his traditon. Not
> Shankara was necessarily authoritative, but what view are you
> "viewing" that tops his? 
>  The idea that E'd people are
> > performing 100% Dharmic acts, while others are scoring less than 100%
> > is speculative.  More consistent with the facts (rather than
> > rationalizing the "Crazy Wisdom" fallacy); is that MMY's performance
> performace towards what "goal" or against what standard?
> > is (particularly in fields out of his area of expertise); piss poor.
> >  One might as well consult the Pope on matters of economics and
> politics.
> And thus are you implying non E's action are piss poor? Since you did
> not take the other road, more consistent with your first statement,
> perhaps, that E and non-E action is equally in tune with some Cosmic
> Plan. 
> And that plan is? 
> Towards greater happiness? That doesn't sound like a PLAN as in
> detailed plan. It sounds like a highly generalized heuristic. For
> which there (abundant IMO) evidence.   
> So if this generalized heuristic is the PLAN, who is to say E, unE or
> MMY are not 100% heuristically "grovin" towards happiness -- at least
> over the long run.

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