--- In [email protected], "hyperbolicgeometry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One might construe N's orientation as being fully "non- attached" ...or > not; perhaps he lacks interest in relative considerations. Being > external obserers, we don't know what the true situation is for sure. > It's analogous to a Turing machine test: either a computer or a real > person is answering questions behind some opaque substance which blocks > our vision of the speaker. We are required to guess whether the > speaker is a computer or a real person, based solely on the content of > the answers. > Short of magical knowledge or cheating, our decision must be based on > common sense considerations. > By analogy, consider the case of Nisagardatta Maharaj. Is his apparent > lack of interest in things relative evidence of some deeper, more > profound Realization than than possessed by MMY? I think not. > Simply because MMY expresses more interest in things relative than N, > such as accumulating wealth, establishing Heaven on Earth, etc; this > cannot (IMO) be constued as evidence that MMY's realization falls short > of N's.
Agreed. Masters of different traditions may focus on different aspects of life according to their background and primary deity. Maharishis 200% philosophy is unique. The relative and the absolute is one. The one infuses the other and there is no contradiction. Some realized Masters and Yogis, who I have met in India, will swear that this is rubbish and can even get quite agitated about this matter. Are they wrong ? No. Is Maharishi right ? Yes. Is there a conflict of ideas ? No.
