--- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > > wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > 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. > > > > he point I am making John is that I DON'T CARE what Maharishi does, > > nor does it have any bearing on the thoughts I have for him and > > about him. > > > Fine. No problem, if you're willing to suspend factual reality and its > practical implications. > > > "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all > > that. You sound as if you either have unresolved issues with him, or > > like a self-righteous prig, are going around telling me what to > > think, feel or believe.:-) > > > > > > 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. > > > > > You are saying I live in a pretend world? Yes, fine. And what about > > yours then? Built on logical truths from your heart and conscience. > > Also a fabrication of your own making. > > > Now that's just bizarre, Jim. You're suggesting that my pointing out > facts in objective reality is "a fabrication of [my] own making." You > can't see that you're avoiding addressing those facts? I can accept > that they don't matter to you, but to outright dismiss them as a > fabrication, is, to me, less than forthright on your part. > > > > And yet, you deny that my > > existence is real > > > Huh? You're 'existence' ????? > > > > because I won't join you you in your make believe > > world of Maharishi is wrong? And that therefore makes me wrong? > > > > The difference between me and a true believer is that a true > > believer will not accept that others feel differently from the way > > they do, much in the way that you are doing now, ironically. > > > Of course you can feel however you wish, Jim. But please don't attempt > to suggest that objective factual reality is beyond acknowledgement, > scrutiny and discussion. > > > > I on the other hand am perfectly happy and content to have you and > > anyone else believe anything they please about Maharishi, that he is > > a crook, liar and schemer, fallen far away from Guru Dev's > > intentions, a saint out for money and power. I am fine with anyone > > who wants to believe. it. > > > Here you're exaggerating and distorting what I actually said, thereby > shifting the discussion. And by doing so you're expressing an > unwillingness to to honestly and directly discuss the actual objective > realities I've brought up [not the ones you've made here and come to > conclusions about]. > > > > Makes no difference in my life at all. > > > That's not the issue. But if you're using that as another excuse to > avoid directly addressing the facts, fine. In my view, you're an > observer who feels that bad behavior in an authority figure and > spiritual icon and its implications for credibility and > exemplification are irrelevant. And you've apparently reached this > conclusion because you've experienced some 'happy pie' from your > practise which came to you from Maharishi. > > That's clearly what 'true believers' do - justify to themselves that > any abberations that appear and that have real consequences for > others, are somehow irrelevant or "don't matter". I'm saying that they > DO matter - not just to me, but to countless TMers with whom I've come > into contact over the years. > > It's fine for you to ostensibly be in a state of consciousness where > good and bad don't affect you. But in my view, that can NEVER justify > an indifference to it in one's life. Maharishi has himself expressed > that view verbally. > > > > As > > I have said before, I enjoy the discussions of spiritual topics > > here, > > > But you're not apparently willing to directly address this one. > > > > but my involvement in such things is limited to just this > > board, one other, and my daily practice of TM. I have no involvement > > nor do I discuss my spiritual life with anyone or any group outside > > this and one other forum.:-) > > > That's irrelevant to this discussion. > OK- Thanks for your comments. In such an online discussion it is difficult for me to see what the real issues are sometimes. So, you want me to say that I understand that Maharishi has done some things or caused those in his organization to do some things which others see as wrong. Yes, I see that.
Second issue seems to be: Do I admit that Maharishi has done some things that are wrong, and therefore these things impact my judgment of his credibility? And my answer is that whatever he may have done that is wrong doesn't impact my view of him. Which speaks directly to the critical issue here of what I am attempting to get from him that requires that his credibility remain absolutely intact. Because the two are intimately linked; need and credibility. There is nothing I need from Maharishi. Absolutely nothing at all. Zip. Not enlightenment, or CC or GC or UC or Brahman, or any explanations, elucidations, clarifications, techniques, or anything else. That being said, there is nothing he can do to affect his credibility with me. I want nothing from Maharishi, past, present or future. I hope this settles the question with you John. We appear to have very different needs with regard to our relationship with Maharishi.:-)
