--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "BillyG." <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, it isn't about the TM technique, it's about > > > Maharishi. > > > > > > Advancement on the path doesn't mean you throw your brains > out > > > the > > > > > > window and ignore the weird abberations in people's > behavior, > > > even in > > > > > > Maharishi. > > > > > > > > > > I would agree, ones own dharma is superior to the dharma of > > > another's > > > > > even though it be higher. Your best guide will *always* be > your > > > > > conscience, "to thine own Self be true*. > > > > > > > > > God speaks directly to us thru our conscience and > > > intuition......not > > > > > another person, IMO, even MMY. > > > > > > > > Bingo! > > > > > > > Alternatively, God speaks to us through every element of His > > > Creation, be it Maharishi, my dad, the hummingbird I see with > > > increasing frequency in the backyard, the bum outside Safeway, > every > > > inner and outer experience in this six dimensional world.:-) > > > > > > You're saying that since "God speaks to us through every element of > > His Creation" this is somehow an alternative to determining the > > difference between right and wrong via one's conscience and > intuition? > > Oh no, not at all, in fact in terms of my experience, determining > the difference between right and wrong for myself is very much an > element of God's creation, of speaking with God. So I am enlarging > your intent, not constraining it. Where is God not? When I read your > words, they are the words of God, as surely as Maharishi's, as > surely as mine.:-) > > > It's a non-sequitur if you care to notice, Jim. Nice try though to > > change the topic frame away from the importance of the issue of > > Maharishi's actions. I wonder if you do stuff like that > unconsciously > > to not have to address issues like that one. > > > Very much consciously. I suppose if I owed Maharishi the mortgage on > my house, and he suddenly threw me out in the cold, or came in the > door and blew my leg off with a shotgun, I'd be all caught up in > what he did and why, and why he did it to me, and why. Given that > neither of those are the case, I really am not concerned about what > he does or doesn't do. My only concern in this world of my making is > to meet all of my challenges, and lead a good life. Perhaps it is > different in your world of your making. I don't know.
Not having had Maharishi 'throw you out in the cold' is very much another distraction from the clear objective facts of what he actually does. It seems you're avoiding addressing those facts like you'd avoid the bubonic plague. > I don't follow your chain of logic about Maharishi, and therefore > conclude as you do, that he does wrong things and acts adharmically. > I just don't feel it the same way that you do, nor see it in the > same way. I am not his defender nor his accuser. How is that even > possible? He is and will always be Maharishi to me, not someone I > will judge at all. It has nothing to do with avoiding anything, and > everything with seeing my world as it is. Do we truly inhabit the > same world John?:-) Living in a pretend world is often the situation with true believers, Jim.
