--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "> Yeah, but my question is whether we're capable of > > determining what they "should" mean. He appears to > > be saying he is, at least in that quote, but I'm > > not so sure." > > It seems to me that we are already engaged in this process.
Yes, but some of us have been arguing on the other side all along, i.e., that behavior doesn't tell you anything about state of consciousness. Anyone > gaining these states in the context of a tradition has been > conditioned to think about them in a certain way. MMY spends > an amazing amount of time repeating the basics of how we should > think of these states. Remember his banana-peel analogy? That's Krishna's "Unfathomable is the course of action." If MMY links certain specific kinds of behavior (i.e., more "ethical") to state of consciousness, it's a big fat contradiction. (And the enlightened guy should *still* get a summons for littering, even if the child molester's slipping on the banana peel made it possible to capture him.) At least teachers have spent a mind numbing amount of > time on repetitive tapes. I think in the past most people serious > about these practices were under pretty strict control of their > teacher. With a system like MMY that is served in a buffet fashion, > there may be room for more personal choices, especially for people > like yourself who have not joined it as a full time thing. > > I am sure that I have long departed with any relationship to what he > said and am now in my own world on this topic. When I went to his > site I got the whole "I am special" vibe that makes me lose my lunch. > But that quote was intriguing. I do think you and I are getting very different things out of it, although we get the same funny-in-the-tummy vibe from him.
