[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[dhamiltony2k5]

Like with the quiet time in public schools. Their guidelines will
in all practicality proly get to be like the Yogananda org does with
its meetings for their large group meditations now. Very clearly
stating they practice a silent meditation and folks are welcome to
practice their own silent meditation too so long as it does not
disturb the group meditation.
That is a community practicality that recognizes the reality of how
it is now. That practicality is about viability.

xox

Conventional thinking said that (spiritual practice) uniformity made 
for order and tranquility, but Madison disagreed.  Enforced 
homogeneity was smothering and bred unrest.  Recalling Voltaire's 
maxim that the existence of only one (spiritual practice) in a nation 
produces slavery and two ignites civil war, while a multitude 
produces peace, Madison made spiritual diversity the linchpin of 
American liberty.

- Revolutionary Spirits, The Enlightened Faith of America's Founding 
Fathers.   -Kowalski2008




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 
dhamiltony...@... wrote:

 Good post Turq.  I feel a similar way in watching and do basically 
 agree.  They could certainly walk up-right when they wish to and 
not 
 even have to acknowledge their past to go on; sort of the strategy 
of 
 the Catholic Church in managing their own strife within and 
history.  
 
 Though is interesting to see how the TMorg is having to change even 
 now when confronted by what is in front of them.  They do so want 
 legitimacy, numbers, and also to git in.  Towards the utopian 
 numbers, they do so need new meditators and new blood that way 
coming 
 through.  They are evidently having troubles getting only 2000  
 meditators together to meditate let alone 2,500 out of the old 
 meditating community.  
 
 Practically they need to look beyond to the innocent and potential 
 enthusiasm of new meditators to build numbers if only for the grand 
 experiment of group meditation, let alone cultural and organization 
 viability.  Towards this there was a softening in the camps towards 
 dropping the retail price somewhat in that discussion.  Times move 
 faster than they do and of course it is still extremely too high in 
 these times now.  
 
 Yielding, maneuvering  changing also like in the recent adapting 
 towards getting TM in to schools, as the 'quiet time' initiative.
 
 The interesting thing is their having to go along for meditation or 
 prayer ecumenicalism out of that.  Having to yield some of their TM 
 stand.
 
 3rd area, still a confusing the organizational guidelines with 
 the 'purity of their teaching'.  They have not formally revisited 
the 
 guidelines for participation which for years have been so divisive 
of 
 their meditating community.  Those guidelines are so unreal to the 
 times that they will probably come to it out of practicality.  Is 
 pretty clearly not viable otherwise.
 
 Like with the quiet time in public schools.  Their guidelines 
will 
 in all practicality proly get to be like the Yogananda org does 
with 
 its meetings for their large group meditations now.  Very clearly 
 stating they practice a silent meditation and folks are welcome to 
 practice their own silent meditation too so long as it does not 
 disturb the group meditation.
 That is a community practicality that recognizes the reality of how 
 it is now.  That practicality is about viability.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
  dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:

 Ah, thank you Ruth.  I was wondering given 
 the record. Improved 'moral 
 reasoning' is solemnly pointed to by 
 the Dr. in Hagelin's powerpoint 
 present.  Moral reasonging. It is a 
 mouthful as he says it, but oddly 
 there was not elaboration.  Moral 
 reasoning.  Improved moral reasoning 
 but a school and program with no 
 ethical code or consideration.  Not 
 a we are this and not that to be found.  
 No chart on moral behavior.  
 No limit to what they will tolerate 
 in ethical behavior.  Very nuevo.
   
   Very nuevo.  Not classic moral philosophy neither.
   
TMorg mores, 
   without conscience?
   'what were they thinking?' 
  
  Doug, they *weren't* thinking. They were 
  doing what they were told to do.
  
  THAT is the bottom line of the TM movement
  so far, as far as I can tell.
  
  Now that movement is in a position where
  there is no one to tell them what to do.
  They have only two choices IMO -- to continue
  doing what they were told to do, or to forge
  new directions and do something else.
  
  The first path is safe. Given the history of
  spiritual traditions on this planet, no one is
  going to criticize them overmuch for continuing 
  to do what they were told to do by the teacher 
  they revere as more than human, and infallible
  because he was supposedly enlightened. 
  
  The second path is *definitely* not 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[dhamiltony2k5]

Good post Turq.  I feel a similar way in watching and do basically 
agree.  They could certainly walk up-right when they wish to and not 
even have to acknowledge their past to go on; sort of the strategy of 
the Catholic Church in managing their own strife within and history.  

Though is interesting to see how the TMorg is having to change even 
now when confronted by what is in front of them.  They do so want 
legitimacy, numbers, and also to git in.  Towards the utopian 
numbers, they do so need new meditators and new blood that way coming 
through.  They are evidently having troubles getting only 2000  
meditators together to meditate let alone 2,500 out of the old 
meditating community.  

Practically they need to look beyond to the innocent and potential 
enthusiasm of new meditators to build numbers if only for the grand 
experiment of group meditation, let alone cultural and organization 
viability.  Towards this there was a softening in the camps towards 
dropping the retail price somewhat in that discussion.  Times move 
faster than they do and of course it is still extremely too high in 
these times now.  

Yielding, maneuvering  changing also like in the recent adapting 
towards getting TM in to schools, as the 'quiet time' initiative.

The interesting thing is their having to go along for meditation or 
prayer ecumenicalism out of that.  Having to yield some of their TM 
stand.

3rd area, still a confusing the organizational guidelines with 
the 'purity of their teaching'.  They have not formally revisited the 
guidelines for participation which for years have been so divisive of 
their meditating community.  Those guidelines are so unreal to the 
times that they will probably come to it out of practicality.  Is 
pretty clearly not viable otherwise.

Like with the quiet time in public schools.  Their guidelines will 
in all practicality proly get to be like the Yogananda org does with 
its meetings for their large group meditations now.  Very clearly 
stating they practice a silent meditation and folks are welcome to 
practice their own silent meditation too so long as it does not 
disturb the group meditation.
That is a community practicality that recognizes the reality of how 
it is now.  That practicality is about viability.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
   
Ah, thank you Ruth.  I was wondering given 
the record. Improved 'moral 
reasoning' is solemnly pointed to by 
the Dr. in Hagelin's powerpoint 
present.  Moral reasonging. It is a 
mouthful as he says it, but oddly 
there was not elaboration.  Moral 
reasoning.  Improved moral reasoning 
but a school and program with no 
ethical code or consideration.  Not 
a we are this and not that to be found.  
No chart on moral behavior.  
No limit to what they will tolerate 
in ethical behavior.  Very nuevo.
  
  Very nuevo.  Not classic moral philosophy neither.
  
   TMorg mores, 
  without conscience?
  'what were they thinking?' 
 
 Doug, they *weren't* thinking. They were 
 doing what they were told to do.
 
 THAT is the bottom line of the TM movement
 so far, as far as I can tell.
 
 Now that movement is in a position where
 there is no one to tell them what to do.
 They have only two choices IMO -- to continue
 doing what they were told to do, or to forge
 new directions and do something else.
 
 The first path is safe. Given the history of
 spiritual traditions on this planet, no one is
 going to criticize them overmuch for continuing 
 to do what they were told to do by the teacher 
 they revere as more than human, and infallible
 because he was supposedly enlightened. 
 
 The second path is *definitely* not safe. It
 is more akin to what Obama is trying to do with
 regard to the policies that precede him in 
 American history. It entails starting with an
 apology for past behavior, and starting over
 with all-new behavior.
 
 While I understand the emotion and the feelings
 that underlie your ongoing posts on addressing
 the inequities of the past, personally I don't
 think that's ever going to happen in the TMO, 
 and CAN'T ever happen in the TMO. Reasons 
 for my belief follow.
  
  Emerson  los transcendentalists saw conscience as a faculty of 
  moral instinct.  An inner transcendental form as they saw it to 
  develop.  A faculty and a soul of a voice.  At the least, that 
  little voice inside that says, No.  
  
  Ethics: a system of moral standards or values
  Conscience: as that inner faculty of moral discernment  
conscience 
  different from reasoning.  Conscience as that faculty of clear 
  quiet brain wherein the brain receives its soul of moral 
guidance, 
  its ethics.
  
  Unethical.
  Is the culture of the TMo without conscience or just bad ethical 
  code? Does sort of reflect on them that there is not anywhere in 
  the MUM catalog a code of 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 I know you have given this topic some deep thought Judy and it 
shows.
  Interesting response.  You put your finger on where the line is 
drawn
 between believing that such a non-dual state is possible and not.
 
  Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more*
  mysterious statement than that! A world which 
  appears to be fraught with intractable 
  contradictions but in which a perspective is(
  possible that resolves them seems to me to be a
  much more interesting and complex world than one
  in which they stay intractable.
 
 And for people willing to test the theory all I can
 say is please keep in touch!  I am just not inclined
 to believe that it is possible but I am the first to
 cop to the limits of what I know.
 
 None of my reference experiences in and out of the
 movement give me me confidence in this claim.

What gives me what confidence I have in the claim
is basically that it's made at all. It doesn't
seem like the kind of thing one would invent, or
an experience one could be mistaken about or
misinterpret, exactly because free will/determinism
is such a very hard contradiction, even to those who
aren't well trained in philosophy. (I hasten to add
it's not *my* experience.)

  I'm not sure I feel that this contradiction
 needs resolving.  It seems fine to me just as
 the mystery it seems to be.

It would be OK with me as well if I'd never heard
anyone say there was a resolution to it. Their
descriptions of the resolution, of course, aren't
fully comprehensible because, again, it's not
possible to describe unity in dualistic language.
But sometimes I can get something of a sense of
how it might work.

Awhile back you and I discussed Erwin Schroedinger's
understanding of the resolution. I have no idea if
he had the actual experience, but his intellectual
formulation made sense to me. It's our constant
experience that we have free will, but our objective
scientific knowledge suggests just the opposite. If
there is ultimately only one I, if the part of
each one of us who says I is ultimately the same
singular I, that's where the experience of free
will comes from, and it's that will which does all
the determining that we know takes place
scientifically.

(He said it a lot better than I did, but I can't
look it up and quote it at the moment.)

Since he came up with that formulation, science
seems to have discovered more and more aspects of
human experience that are in some way determined;
and there don't seem to be any significant
discoveries that would validate individual free will.

And the notion that there is only one I is ancient
and pervasive in the literature of enlightenment.

So I find all this intriguing enough that I'm
reluctant to conclude it's just some kind of fantasy.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  I know you have given this topic some deep thought Judy and it 
 shows.
   Interesting response.  You put your finger on where the line is 
 drawn
  between believing that such a non-dual state is possible and not.
  
   Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more*
   mysterious statement than that! A world which 
   appears to be fraught with intractable 
   contradictions but in which a perspective is(
   possible that resolves them seems to me to be a
   much more interesting and complex world than one
   in which they stay intractable.
  
  And for people willing to test the theory all I can
  say is please keep in touch!  I am just not inclined
  to believe that it is possible but I am the first to
  cop to the limits of what I know.
  
  None of my reference experiences in and out of the
  movement give me me confidence in this claim.
 
 What gives me what confidence I have in the claim
 is basically that it's made at all. It doesn't
 seem like the kind of thing one would invent, or
 an experience one could be mistaken about or
 misinterpret, exactly because free will/determinism
 is such a very hard contradiction, even to those who
 aren't well trained in philosophy. (I hasten to add
 it's not *my* experience.)
 
   I'm not sure I feel that this contradiction
  needs resolving.  It seems fine to me just as
  the mystery it seems to be.
 
 It would be OK with me as well if I'd never heard
 anyone say there was a resolution to it. Their
 descriptions of the resolution, of course, aren't
 fully comprehensible because, again, it's not
 possible to describe unity in dualistic language.
 But sometimes I can get something of a sense of
 how it might work.
 
 Awhile back you and I discussed Erwin Schroedinger's
 understanding of the resolution. I have no idea if
 he had the actual experience, but his intellectual
 formulation made sense to me. It's our constant
 experience that we have free will, but our objective
 scientific knowledge suggests just the opposite. If
 there is ultimately only one I, if the part of
 each one of us who says I is ultimately the same
 singular I, that's where the experience of free
 will comes from, and it's that will which does all
 the determining that we know takes place
 scientifically.
 
 (He said it a lot better than I did, but I can't
 look it up and quote it at the moment.)
 
 Since he came up with that formulation, science
 seems to have discovered more and more aspects of
 human experience that are in some way determined;
 and there don't seem to be any significant
 discoveries that would validate individual free will.
 
 And the notion that there is only one I is ancient
 and pervasive in the literature of enlightenment.
 
 So I find all this intriguing enough that I'm
 reluctant to conclude it's just some kind of fantasy.

  Could we say that going out in the rain is free will but getting wet
is predetermined?

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
dhamiltony...@... wrote:
  
   Ah, thank you Ruth.  I was wondering given 
   the record. Improved 'moral 
   reasoning' is solemnly pointed to by 
   the Dr. in Hagelin's powerpoint 
   present.  Moral reasonging. It is a 
   mouthful as he says it, but oddly 
   there was not elaboration.  Moral 
   reasoning.  Improved moral reasoning 
   but a school and program with no 
   ethical code or consideration.  Not 
   a we are this and not that to be found.  
   No chart on moral behavior.  
   No limit to what they will tolerate 
   in ethical behavior.  Very nuevo.
 
 Very nuevo.  Not classic moral philosophy neither.
 
  TMorg mores, 
 without conscience?
 'what were they thinking?' 

Doug, they *weren't* thinking. They were 
doing what they were told to do.

THAT is the bottom line of the TM movement
so far, as far as I can tell.

Now that movement is in a position where
there is no one to tell them what to do.
They have only two choices IMO -- to continue
doing what they were told to do, or to forge
new directions and do something else.

The first path is safe. Given the history of
spiritual traditions on this planet, no one is
going to criticize them overmuch for continuing 
to do what they were told to do by the teacher 
they revere as more than human, and infallible
because he was supposedly enlightened. 

The second path is *definitely* not safe. It
is more akin to what Obama is trying to do with
regard to the policies that precede him in 
American history. It entails starting with an
apology for past behavior, and starting over
with all-new behavior.

While I understand the emotion and the feelings
that underlie your ongoing posts on addressing
the inequities of the past, personally I don't
think that's ever going to happen in the TMO, 
and CAN'T ever happen in the TMO. Reasons 
for my belief follow.
 
 Emerson  los transcendentalists saw conscience as a faculty of 
 moral instinct.  An inner transcendental form as they saw it to 
 develop.  A faculty and a soul of a voice.  At the least, that 
 little voice inside that says, No.  
 
 Ethics: a system of moral standards or values
 Conscience: as that inner faculty of moral discernment  conscience 
 different from reasoning.  Conscience as that faculty of clear 
 quiet brain wherein the brain receives its soul of moral guidance, 
 its ethics.
 
 Unethical.
 Is the culture of the TMo without conscience or just bad ethical 
 code? Does sort of reflect on them that there is not anywhere in 
 the MUM catalog a code of ethic they would stand by in their 
 governance and way of doing business.  A non-tolerance of bad 
 behavior anywhere.  

That's because there was a *clear* definition in
place for what constitutes right behavior and
what constitutes wrong behavior. That definition
was expressed in one word -- Maharishisez.

THAT is the bottom line of the moral code that 
ruled and continues to rule the TM movement. *By
definition*, because of related definitions of
enlightenment and the supposed infallibility of
the actions of the supposedly enlightened, what-
ever he said to do was right action. There was
never any *need* for a moral code because the
dogma Maharishi taught was clear about what 
moral entails -- Do what I say because it is
by definition in tune with the laws of nature. 
If you do, you are welcome to stay. If you don't, 
you must leave.

Now that he is no longer around *to* say what
is moral and what is not, IMO the leaders of the
TMO are floundering around trying to figure out
what to do. They have available to them two
options -- continue to do the same old same old
Mahrishisez stuff, or try something new.

 Spiritual Regeneration.  
 Leading on Hagelin has missed a chance entirely coming off of the 
 death of Maharishi to walk erect and say, We are not that… hence 
 forth we will not tolerate bad behaviors in our doings… our books 
 are open and our dealings will be forthright, transparent  honest 
 from here on.  The past, was just a lesser state of conscience 
 consciousness.  

While I agree with you that such an open approach
would be welcomed by many, I think you're fooling
yourself if you think it will ever happen.

If it ever DOES happen, it will happen quietly, 
with no fanfare. Openness will slowly and quietly
become policy, but without ever announcing it. TO
announce would be to imply that the old way of
doing things was WRONG. 

And that CANNOT ever happen in the TM movement. 
Ever.

There is simply no possibility within the organiza-
tion that Maharishi created for its leaders to say 
that he might have been wrong about something. The
very dogma of enlightenment that he proposed makes
this impossible to admit. If the organization wants
to claim that he was enlightened, then following
Maharishi's *own* definitions, *every* action he
performed, every pronouncement he made, and every
policy he instituted or approved is *by definition*
right action. 

As long as you are 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Peter]

When John talks about moral reasoning improving, I'm sure he's talking about 
some sort of assessment utilizing Kohlberg's model of moral reasoning. The 
irony is that there is a poor correlation between moral reasoning and moral 
behavior. For most of us, research indicates that we have morals of convenience 
for the most part.


--- On Tue, 1/6/09, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote:

 From: dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in 
 brain)
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 10:52 PM
  
   Ah, thank you Ruth.  I was wondering given 
   the record. Improved 'moral 
   reasoning' is solemnly pointed to by 
   the Dr. in Hagelin's powerpoint 
   present.  Moral reasonging. It is a 
   mouthful as he says it, but oddly 
   there was not elaboration.  Moral 
   reasoning.  Improved moral reasoning 
   but a school and program with no 
   ethical code or consideration.  Not 
   a we are this and not that to be
 found.  
   No chart on moral behavior.  
   No limit to what they will tolerate 
   in ethical behavior.  Very nuevo.
 
 Very nuevo.  Not classic moral philosophy neither.
 
  TMorg mores, 
 without conscience?
 'what were they thinking?' 
 
 Emerson  los transcendentalists saw conscience as a
 faculty of moral 
 instinct.  An inner transcendental form as they saw it to
 develop.  A 
 faculty and a soul of a voice.  At the least, that little
 voice 
 inside that says, No.  
 
 
 Ethics: a system of moral standards or values
 Conscience: as that inner faculty of moral discernment
  conscience 
 different from reasoning.  Conscience as that faculty of
 clear quiet 
 brain wherein the brain receives its soul of moral
 guidance, its 
 ethics.
 
 Unethical.
 Is the culture of the TMo without conscience or just bad
 ethical 
 code?  Does sort of reflect on them that there is not
 anywhere in the 
 MUM catalog a code of ethic they would stand by in their
 governance 
 and way of doing business.  A non-tolerance of bad behavior
 
 anywhere.  
 
 Spiritual Regeneration.  
 Leading on Hagelin has missed a chance entirely coming off
 of the 
 death of Maharishi to walk erect and say, We are not
 that… hence 
 forth we will not tolerate bad behaviors in our doings…
 our books are 
 open and our dealings will be forthright, transparent 
 honest from 
 here on.  The past, was just a lesser state of conscience 
 consciousness.  
 
 
 
 
  
  The instruction is simple and, in my 
  day, oft repeated: Do not do that which 
  you know to be wrong. So the question
  would be, in interviewing someone who
  did something the rest of us find
  morally compromised, Did you simply
  not know such an act was wrong? Or did
  you know, yet do it anyway?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 

  

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
-snip-
 you are talking about an organization
 that believes to its core that an enlightened being
 is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
 an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
 action, 
-snip-

so if we throw out the above definition, what are we left with wrt 
enlightenment? no one ever said that people could not disagree with 
the actions or speech of an enlightened person, or that the speech or 
actions of an enlightened person wouldn't rub someone like you the 
wrong way. 

how old are you anyway? haven't you figured out by now that -
everything- done here on earth has BOTH a supporting and opposing 
effect, depending on the consciousness of the observer? you come 
across so childishly sometimes...its not all for Barry, all the time. 

there are about 6 billion other consciousnesses competing with your 
world view, and you know what-- some of what is said by enlightened 
folks is going to plainly make you uncomfortable. 6 words for you: 
grow up, and too fucking bad.

OF COURSE an enlightened person is in tune with the universe. that is 
what makes them enlightened; that is the practical definition. if they 
weren't in tune with the universe, they wouldn't be enlightened; 
enlightenment then has no practical value. 

the purpose of doing transcendental meditation and other sadhana for 
the years and years is to reliably transcend, and then gradually 
integrate the pure nature of Being into activity. 

remember all those intro lectures you gave? rememeber how you were 
able to substantiate the content of those lectures with the daily 
practice of TM? or maybe it has been so long that your cemented and 
entrenched and arrogant ego has blinded you to the basic knowledge of 
life.

3 more words for you: get a clue, and stop spreading your dis-ease.  

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 -snip-
  you are talking about an organization
  that believes to its core that an enlightened being
  is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
  an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
  action, 
 -snip-



 OF COURSE an enlightened person is in tune with the universe. that 
is 
 what makes them enlightened; that is the practical definition. if 
they 
 weren't in tune with the universe, they wouldn't be enlightened; 
 enlightenment then has no practical value. 

In tune with the universe What does that even mean?

How can you be out of tune with it? Do you think that the
universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves
and gives us nature support? is TM the best way to get
the universe on our side.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jan 7, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Hugo wrote:

 In tune with the universe What does that even mean?

 How can you be out of tune with it? Do you think that the
 universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves
 and gives us nature support?

Cmon, Hugo, haven't you ever heard the universe
whisper, You're either with us or against us?
If not, you're obviously not in tune with it!

 is TM the best way to get
 the universe on our side.

Yes, The Universe regularly demands huge course
fees and fake golden crowns.  It's a known fact
of physics.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

snip
 As long as you are talking about an organization
 that believes to its core that an enlightened being
 is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
 an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
 action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that
 organization admitting publicly that anything it
 did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly
 enlightened leader* could have been anything less
 than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen.

As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't
the only one), this is a misinterpretation.

There are two courses of action involved in
such a situation. One is the enlightened person
saying, Do this, and the other is the folks
listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that.

It's entirely possible that the first was right
action and the second wrong action. For all
we know, right action for those listening to
the enlightened person would be to say, No, I
ain't gonna do that.

Refusing to do it would not imply that the
enlightened person was wrong in the sense of 
being in tune with the laws of nature for
having told them to do whatever it was, nor
would it necessarily make them wrong for not
doing it.

For all we know, nature might want the
enlightened person to tell followers to do
something it would be wrong for them to do, the
whole point, from nature's perspective, being
for them to realize it would be wrong and 
decline to do it.

Being a follower of an enlightened person, in
other words, does not relieve one of the
responsibility for making one's own decisions
about whether it's right or wrong for oneself
to do something, including doing what the
enlightened person asks.

I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM
teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow
inevitably from the rest of his teaching about
the laws of nature and the enlightened person's
relationship to them.

But then if you take it still further, you have
to wonder how it's possible for anybody ever to
do anything against the laws of nature. What
would that even mean, if the laws of nature are
all-encompassing?

It seems to me the whole laws of nature bit,
as I suggested in an earlier post, is one of the
least-well-understood elements of what MMY taught,
and that he didn't do much of anything to clarify
it--possibly because he wanted us to figure it 
out for ourselves.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... 
wrote:

 On Jan 7, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Hugo wrote:
 
  In tune with the universe What does that even mean?
 
  How can you be out of tune with it? Do you think that the
  universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves
  and gives us nature support?
 
 Cmon, Hugo, haven't you ever heard the universe
 whisper, You're either with us or against us?
 If not, you're obviously not in tune with it!

This is the trouble with group prog, all I can hear
is the guy next to me snoring.

But no, I don't think I'm very evolved I'm afraid.
No matter, I'm sure the universe will manage to struggle
along without me somehow.

  is TM the best way to get
  the universe on our side.
 
 Yes, The Universe regularly demands huge course
 fees and fake golden crowns.  It's a known fact
 of physics.

There's a lecture in there somewhere.
 
 Sal

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
 snip
  As long as you are talking about an organization
  that believes to its core that an enlightened being
  is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
  an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
  action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that
  organization admitting publicly that anything it
  did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly
  enlightened leader* could have been anything less
  than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen.
 
 As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't
 the only one), this is a misinterpretation.
 
 There are two courses of action involved in
 such a situation. One is the enlightened person
 saying, Do this, and the other is the folks
 listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that.
 
 It's entirely possible that the first was right
 action and the second wrong action. For all
 we know, right action for those listening to
 the enlightened person would be to say, No, I
 ain't gonna do that.

But there is another course of action, you can assume 
that the enlightened person is no more or less likely
to be wrong than anyone else and, like everyone else,
is acting from a standpoint of what he has learned in
his life.

From my long experience with TMers, MMY saying
something is tantamount to it being beyond criticism. 
How many times have I heard TM teachers say but who 
are you going to believe? An enlightened master
or when I'd question some aspect of what
they consider supreme knowledge. Which is what it
all boils down to for me, can you have greater
knowledge of the world from inside than you can 
get empirically? No, on the evidence I've seen.
 
 Refusing to do it would not imply that the
 enlightened person was wrong in the sense of 
 being in tune with the laws of nature for
 having told them to do whatever it was, nor
 would it necessarily make them wrong for not
 doing it.
 
 For all we know, nature might want the
 enlightened person to tell followers to do
 something it would be wrong for them to do, the
 whole point, from nature's perspective, being
 for them to realize it would be wrong and 
 decline to do it.

It's this idea that nature wants us to do *anything
at all* that baffles me.

I think it comes from the same place that the ten 
commandments and all other religious edicts come from. 
No, not God but *claimed* to come from God so we can say
our morality is not our choice but from a higher power
so we can't argue with it. 

Being on the side of nature herself must be a powerful
driving force if you believe it. I don't of course,
which doesn't mean I'm immoral just that I see nature as
a bunch of stars and planets and apes on them trying to 
give meaning to something that doesn't give a toss about
them. 

Remember the boxing day tsunami a few years ago? The local
TM group discussed the karmic implications endlessly and
asked questions at the monthly meeting on what the official
TM position was. I wanted to explain about plate tectonics
but was fascinated by the default position of eastern blame
it all on being out of touch with nature adopted by everyone.
It's weird is what it is. Beliefs like that should've been 
swept away when superior knowledge came along but MMY still
kept on with his eastern trip. So how can he be said to be in
touch with nature if he didn't teach the national science 
curriculum instead of SCI?

This isn't off topic but fundamental to it. MMY and all
enlightened types still teach what they believe and not
some deeper knowledge. I reckon anyway.

 
 Being a follower of an enlightened person, in
 other words, does not relieve one of the
 responsibility for making one's own decisions
 about whether it's right or wrong for oneself
 to do something, including doing what the
 enlightened person asks.
 
 I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM
 teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow
 inevitably from the rest of his teaching about
 the laws of nature and the enlightened person's
 relationship to them.
 
 But then if you take it still further, you have
 to wonder how it's possible for anybody ever to
 do anything against the laws of nature. What
 would that even mean, if the laws of nature are
 all-encompassing?

I'm sure that there is both an inherited moral sense
(that will vary from person to person) and one that has 
evolved due to necessity from living in large groups that
gets passed from our parents. Most people see morals as 
more or less flexible if there is a good chance they won't
get caught.

Perhaps going against nature is ignoring that little
voice in our heads that we are doing something wrong?

It's all about social control. Someone we admire has a vision
and tells us how to behave to get God or natures favour.
Doesn't mean there's no such thing as enlightenment just that
it isn't all it's cracked up to be.

 It seems to me the whole laws of nature bit,
 as I 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[raunchydog]

I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will
when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the
will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done,
and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
 snip
  As long as you are talking about an organization
  that believes to its core that an enlightened being
  is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
  an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
  action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that
  organization admitting publicly that anything it
  did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly
  enlightened leader* could have been anything less
  than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen.
 
 As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't
 the only one), this is a misinterpretation.
 
 There are two courses of action involved in
 such a situation. One is the enlightened person
 saying, Do this, and the other is the folks
 listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that.
 
 It's entirely possible that the first was right
 action and the second wrong action. For all
 we know, right action for those listening to
 the enlightened person would be to say, No, I
 ain't gonna do that.
 
 Refusing to do it would not imply that the
 enlightened person was wrong in the sense of 
 being in tune with the laws of nature for
 having told them to do whatever it was, nor
 would it necessarily make them wrong for not
 doing it.
 
 For all we know, nature might want the
 enlightened person to tell followers to do
 something it would be wrong for them to do, the
 whole point, from nature's perspective, being
 for them to realize it would be wrong and 
 decline to do it.
 
 Being a follower of an enlightened person, in
 other words, does not relieve one of the
 responsibility for making one's own decisions
 about whether it's right or wrong for oneself
 to do something, including doing what the
 enlightened person asks.
 
 I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM
 teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow
 inevitably from the rest of his teaching about
 the laws of nature and the enlightened person's
 relationship to them.
 
 But then if you take it still further, you have
 to wonder how it's possible for anybody ever to
 do anything against the laws of nature. What
 would that even mean, if the laws of nature are
 all-encompassing?
 
 It seems to me the whole laws of nature bit,
 as I suggested in an earlier post, is one of the
 least-well-understood elements of what MMY taught,
 and that he didn't do much of anything to clarify
 it--possibly because he wanted us to figure it 
 out for ourselves.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote:

 It's this idea that nature wants us to do *anything
 at all* that baffles me.

Me, too.

 I think it comes from the same place that the ten 
 commandments and all other religious edicts come from. 
 No, not God but *claimed* to come from God so we can say
 our morality is not our choice but from a higher power
 so we can't argue with it. 

I think it comes from fear that the universe 
is chaotic and the wishful belief that it isn't.

If one can postulate some God (even if one calls
it by the euphemism Nature) that has a will,
one can pretend that there really IS a Grand
Plan behind all of this. Some seem to want this,
or even need it. Me, I'm comfortable with it all 
being Grand Chaos.

 Being on the side of nature herself must be a powerful
 driving force if you believe it. 

It's also a great sales pitch if you can get 
others to believe it, or even to believe that
you believe it.

O senseless man, who could not possibly make 
a worm, but will make gods by the dozens.
- Michel de Montaigne, Essays, 1580

Re: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Peter]

--- On Wed, 1/7/09, Hugo richardhughes...@hotmail.com wrote:

 From: Hugo richardhughes...@hotmail.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in 
 brain)
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 11:25 AM
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
 no_re...@... wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
 no_reply@ wrote:
  -snip-
   you are talking about an organization
   that believes to its core that an enlightened
 being
   is in tune with the laws of nature
 and that such
   an enlightened being cannot possibly perform
 wrong
   action, 
  -snip-
 
 
 
  OF COURSE an enlightened person is in tune with the
 universe. that 
 is 
  what makes them enlightened; that is the practical
 definition. if 
 they 
  weren't in tune with the universe, they
 wouldn't be enlightened; 
  enlightenment then has no practical value. 
 
 In tune with the universe What does that even
 mean?
 
 How can you be out of tune with it? Do you think that the
 universe has a way that we have to behave and then it
 approves
 and gives us nature support? is TM the best way
 to get
 the universe on our side.


Ha Ha! Hugo, you point out a few philosophical problems with the TM buzz words 
and slogans! Being in tune with natural law means you could be out of tune. But 
is it an all or nothing issue? Can you be partially in tune/out of tune? But 
what does that say about the part that is out of tune? Does it cease to exist? 
If it still exists is it some sort of anti-matter? Are there a separate group 
of out of tune natural laws? But aren't those natural laws too? Oh, it could go 
on forever like this!



 
 
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 

  

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:

 I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will
 when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the
 will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done,
 and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in.


This is one of those examples where Maharishi's lack of philosophy
training becomes problematic.  If you can only act in accord with a
predetermined program, then that is not FREE!  He seemed happy to just
put out contradictory statements as profundities instead of admitting
that the philosophical problem of free will and determinism is not
solved by being in some super state of consciousness.  It remains a
contradiction and humans really don't know if they are acting freely
or are the puppets of intergalactic children who just got the new
Earthlings Wii program for their planet's advanced wireless computer
game's Milky Way edition.  (I am sooo going back on my meds after I
post this.)



 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  
  snip
   As long as you are talking about an organization
   that believes to its core that an enlightened being
   is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
   an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
   action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that
   organization admitting publicly that anything it
   did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly
   enlightened leader* could have been anything less
   than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen.
  
  As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't
  the only one), this is a misinterpretation.
  
  There are two courses of action involved in
  such a situation. One is the enlightened person
  saying, Do this, and the other is the folks
  listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that.
  
  It's entirely possible that the first was right
  action and the second wrong action. For all
  we know, right action for those listening to
  the enlightened person would be to say, No, I
  ain't gonna do that.
  
  Refusing to do it would not imply that the
  enlightened person was wrong in the sense of 
  being in tune with the laws of nature for
  having told them to do whatever it was, nor
  would it necessarily make them wrong for not
  doing it.
  
  For all we know, nature might want the
  enlightened person to tell followers to do
  something it would be wrong for them to do, the
  whole point, from nature's perspective, being
  for them to realize it would be wrong and 
  decline to do it.
  
  Being a follower of an enlightened person, in
  other words, does not relieve one of the
  responsibility for making one's own decisions
  about whether it's right or wrong for oneself
  to do something, including doing what the
  enlightened person asks.
  
  I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM
  teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow
  inevitably from the rest of his teaching about
  the laws of nature and the enlightened person's
  relationship to them.
  
  But then if you take it still further, you have
  to wonder how it's possible for anybody ever to
  do anything against the laws of nature. What
  would that even mean, if the laws of nature are
  all-encompassing?
  
  It seems to me the whole laws of nature bit,
  as I suggested in an earlier post, is one of the
  least-well-understood elements of what MMY taught,
  and that he didn't do much of anything to clarify
  it--possibly because he wanted us to figure it 
  out for ourselves.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jan 7, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Peter wrote:

 In tune with the universe What does that even
 mean?

 How can you be out of tune with it? Do you think that the
 universe has a way that we have to behave and then it
 approves
 and gives us nature support? is TM the best way
 to get
 the universe on our side.


 Ha Ha! Hugo, you point out a few philosophical problems with the TM  
 buzz words and slogans! Being in tune with natural law means you  
 could be out of tune. But is it an all or nothing issue? Can you be  
 partially in tune/out of tune? But what does that say about the  
 part that is out of tune? Does it cease to exist? If it still  
 exists is it some sort of anti-matter? Are there a separate group  
 of out of tune natural laws? But aren't those natural laws too? Oh,  
 it could go on forever like this!

Those are great questions, Peter, and I have the answers.
And I'll give them to you, free of charge.  All you have to do
is send me a $1,000,000.00 free will donation and the
secrets of the universe are yours!

The Universe wants you to do this, trust me.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  
  snip
   As long as you are talking about an organization
   that believes to its core that an enlightened being
   is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
   an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
   action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that
   organization admitting publicly that anything it
   did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly
   enlightened leader* could have been anything less
   than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen.
  
  As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't
  the only one), this is a misinterpretation.
  
  There are two courses of action involved in
  such a situation. One is the enlightened person
  saying, Do this, and the other is the folks
  listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that.
  
  It's entirely possible that the first was right
  action and the second wrong action. For all
  we know, right action for those listening to
  the enlightened person would be to say, No, I
  ain't gonna do that.
 
 But there is another course of action, you can assume 
 that the enlightened person is no more or less likely
 to be wrong than anyone else and, like everyone else,
 is acting from a standpoint of what he has learned in
 his life.

You certainly can assume that. But my point is that
you can believe the enlightened person is acting in
accord with the laws of nature and still choose not
to do what the person says--just as if you made the
assumption you cite--without being inconsistent.

In other words, it makes no difference what you
believe; you don't get extra karmic credit for doing
what the enlightened person says *just because* you
consider them enlightened.

 From my long experience with TMers, MMY saying
 something is tantamount to it being beyond criticism. 
 How many times have I heard TM teachers say but who 
 are you going to believe? An enlightened master
 or when I'd question some aspect of what
 they consider supreme knowledge. Which is what it
 all boils down to for me, can you have greater
 knowledge of the world from inside than you can 
 get empirically? No, on the evidence I've seen.

You can't be *sure*, certainly. But as with anybody
who has more experience than you do in a certain
area, you might give more weight to the advice of
the enlightened person about how to become
enlightened.

By the same token, though, with regard to politics
or economics and suchlike, you might well give *less*
weight to the advice of the enlightened person if he
or she hasn't spent much time studying worldly
affairs.

  Refusing to do it would not imply that the
  enlightened person was wrong in the sense of 
  being in tune with the laws of nature for
  having told them to do whatever it was, nor
  would it necessarily make them wrong for not
  doing it.
  
  For all we know, nature might want the
  enlightened person to tell followers to do
  something it would be wrong for them to do, the
  whole point, from nature's perspective, being
  for them to realize it would be wrong and 
  decline to do it.
 
 It's this idea that nature wants us to do *anything
 at all* that baffles me.
 
 I think it comes from the same place that the ten 
 commandments and all other religious edicts come from. 
 No, not God but *claimed* to come from God so we can say
 our morality is not our choice but from a higher power
 so we can't argue with it.

As I understand the laws of nature notion, there's
nothing you can't argue with because you cannot know
what those laws are anyway. Not even the enlightened
person knows--except that if the enlightened person
is moved to do something, that must be what nature
wants him or her to do.

Gotta get off the computer. If I can, I'll come back
to this after I return home to my own machine this
weekend...

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will
  when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the
  will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done,
  and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in.
 
 
 This is one of those examples where Maharishi's lack of philosophy
 training becomes problematic.  

Beg to differ... what training falsifies that idea? I don't see it.

 If you can only act in accord with a
 predetermined program, then that is not FREE!  

Yes, but that may be just semantics? 

I suppose if you followed Spinoza, you might argue that there is no
free will. But you could (perhaps!) argue that the deep realisation
of that fact in itself changes your behaviour. Which creates a sort of
paradox I suppose (as in quantum mechanics where the act of
observation changes the nature of the observed). I think I see MMY's
position as along those lines (I think!) 

 He seemed happy to just
 put out contradictory statements as profundities instead of admitting
 that the philosophical problem of free will and determinism is not
 solved by being in some super state of consciousness.  It remains a
 contradiction and humans really don't know if they are acting freely
 or are the puppets of intergalactic children who just got the new
 Earthlings Wii program for their planet's advanced wireless computer
 game's Milky Way edition.  (I am sooo going back on my meds after I
 post this.)
 
 
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
   
   snip
As long as you are talking about an organization
that believes to its core that an enlightened being
is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that
organization admitting publicly that anything it
did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly
enlightened leader* could have been anything less
than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen.
   
   As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't
   the only one), this is a misinterpretation.
   
   There are two courses of action involved in
   such a situation. One is the enlightened person
   saying, Do this, and the other is the folks
   listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that.
   
   It's entirely possible that the first was right
   action and the second wrong action. For all
   we know, right action for those listening to
   the enlightened person would be to say, No, I
   ain't gonna do that.
   
   Refusing to do it would not imply that the
   enlightened person was wrong in the sense of 
   being in tune with the laws of nature for
   having told them to do whatever it was, nor
   would it necessarily make them wrong for not
   doing it.
   
   For all we know, nature might want the
   enlightened person to tell followers to do
   something it would be wrong for them to do, the
   whole point, from nature's perspective, being
   for them to realize it would be wrong and 
   decline to do it.
   
   Being a follower of an enlightened person, in
   other words, does not relieve one of the
   responsibility for making one's own decisions
   about whether it's right or wrong for oneself
   to do something, including doing what the
   enlightened person asks.
   
   I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM
   teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow
   inevitably from the rest of his teaching about
   the laws of nature and the enlightened person's
   relationship to them.
   
   But then if you take it still further, you have
   to wonder how it's possible for anybody ever to
   do anything against the laws of nature. What
   would that even mean, if the laws of nature are
   all-encompassing?
   
   It seems to me the whole laws of nature bit,
   as I suggested in an earlier post, is one of the
   least-well-understood elements of what MMY taught,
   and that he didn't do much of anything to clarify
   it--possibly because he wanted us to figure it 
   out for ourselves.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[curtisdeltablues]

 You certainly can assume that. But my point is that
 you can believe the enlightened person is acting in
 accord with the laws of nature and still choose not
 to do what the person says--just as if you made the
 assumption you cite--without being inconsistent.
 
 In other words, it makes no difference what you
 believe; you don't get extra karmic credit for doing
 what the enlightened person says *just because* you
 consider them enlightened.

Actually according to the Guru portions of the scriptures you must do
what he says. According to this model no matter what you do in an
unenlightened state your choice is not as perfect as the enlightened
man's.  This is one of the more philosophically bogus aspects of this
teaching ethically. 

Being around Maharishi, he made it very clear that saying no was not
an option if you wanted to stick around.  acting in accordance with
the desires of the master was really the only technique Maharishi
himself claimed to have used to achieve his state. And it was the
guiding principle of all staff's activities.  

Even famous guys like Elvis didn't keep people around him who said
no.   Guys who present themselves as enlightened masters don't give
access to people who even give them a I'll think about it or not
right now.  This even happens in corporate cultures as we have seen
from the problems in American companies like Enron and the mortgage
industry.  

This represents the two different experiences: meditating without
being in his organization, and anyone who spent time on a full time
program.  We do not appose  was the mantra for the full-timers who
wanted to stick around.  And as middle-plus aged adults it is much
easier to say I would never just do something because they told me
to.  But when you are in your 20's surrounded by people in their 30's
and 40's taking direction was how you learned what your feelings were
about what was right or wrong.  Everything was kind of presented as a
test of loyalty.  I'm just glad that his group didn't swing too far
into illegal activities beyond financial crimes that I was aware of. 
I would hope my upbringing would have allowed me to say no, but it
would have been a problem because of the fallout. Perhaps some people
who spent more time around him can give some examples of Maharishi
telling people to do illegal things and what happened if they said no. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
   
   snip
As long as you are talking about an organization
that believes to its core that an enlightened being
is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that
organization admitting publicly that anything it
did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly
enlightened leader* could have been anything less
than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen.
   
   As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't
   the only one), this is a misinterpretation.
   
   There are two courses of action involved in
   such a situation. One is the enlightened person
   saying, Do this, and the other is the folks
   listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that.
   
   It's entirely possible that the first was right
   action and the second wrong action. For all
   we know, right action for those listening to
   the enlightened person would be to say, No, I
   ain't gonna do that.
  
  But there is another course of action, you can assume 
  that the enlightened person is no more or less likely
  to be wrong than anyone else and, like everyone else,
  is acting from a standpoint of what he has learned in
  his life.
 
 You certainly can assume that. But my point is that
 you can believe the enlightened person is acting in
 accord with the laws of nature and still choose not
 to do what the person says--just as if you made the
 assumption you cite--without being inconsistent.
 
 In other words, it makes no difference what you
 believe; you don't get extra karmic credit for doing
 what the enlightened person says *just because* you
 consider them enlightened.
 
  From my long experience with TMers, MMY saying
  something is tantamount to it being beyond criticism. 
  How many times have I heard TM teachers say but who 
  are you going to believe? An enlightened master
  or when I'd question some aspect of what
  they consider supreme knowledge. Which is what it
  all boils down to for me, can you have greater
  knowledge of the world from inside than you can 
  get empirically? No, on the evidence I've seen.
 
 You can't be *sure*, certainly. But as with anybody
 who has more experience than you do in a certain
 area, you might give more weight to the advice of
 the enlightened person about how 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@
wrote:
  
   I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will
   when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the
   will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be
done,
   and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in.
  
  
  This is one of those examples where Maharishi's lack of philosophy
  training becomes problematic.  
 
 Beg to differ... what training falsifies that idea? I don't see it.

Training in the contradictory dilemmas caused by taking each position.
 It is an unresolved issue in philosophy.  It is mostly used as a way
to train philosophical reasoning but the question itself is not
answered by saying the guy is in UC.  People without training in
philosophy tend to have an unwarranted confidence in their
philosophical arguments without out knowing that more brilliant minds
than theirs have been over this ground already.   Studying philosophy
gives you a sense of humility about human knowledge.  It takes away
some of the glib summations of perennial questions which have no
definite solutions because much of what it deals with is unknown to
humans. (even ones who wear special clothes)  

 
  If you can only act in accord with a
  predetermined program, then that is not FREE!  
 
 Yes, but that may be just semantics? 

They are defined with opposite values.  

 
 I suppose if you followed Spinoza, you might argue that there is no
 free will. But you could (perhaps!) argue that the deep realisation
 of that fact in itself changes your behaviour. Which creates a sort
of paradox I suppose (as in quantum mechanics where the act of
 observation changes the nature of the observed). I think I see MMY's
 position as along those lines (I think!) 

You lost me when you used the physics poetry but Spinoza represents
one aspect of this argument.  My point is that today we have the
benefit of both arguments for human free will and determinism and now
educate people can't make a glib statement that it is resolved, which
Maharishi attempted to do with his higher states model.

 
  He seemed happy to just
  put out contradictory statements as profundities instead of admitting
  that the philosophical problem of free will and determinism is not
  solved by being in some super state of consciousness.  It remains a
  contradiction and humans really don't know if they are acting freely
  or are the puppets of intergalactic children who just got the new
  Earthlings Wii program for their planet's advanced wireless computer
  game's Milky Way edition.  (I am sooo going back on my meds after I
  post this.)
  
  
  
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:

snip
 As long as you are talking about an organization
 that believes to its core that an enlightened being
 is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
 an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
 action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that
 organization admitting publicly that anything it
 did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly
 enlightened leader* could have been anything less
 than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen.

As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't
the only one), this is a misinterpretation.

There are two courses of action involved in
such a situation. One is the enlightened person
saying, Do this, and the other is the folks
listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that.

It's entirely possible that the first was right
action and the second wrong action. For all
we know, right action for those listening to
the enlightened person would be to say, No, I
ain't gonna do that.

Refusing to do it would not imply that the
enlightened person was wrong in the sense of 
being in tune with the laws of nature for
having told them to do whatever it was, nor
would it necessarily make them wrong for not
doing it.

For all we know, nature might want the
enlightened person to tell followers to do
something it would be wrong for them to do, the
whole point, from nature's perspective, being
for them to realize it would be wrong and 
decline to do it.

Being a follower of an enlightened person, in
other words, does not relieve one of the
responsibility for making one's own decisions
about whether it's right or wrong for oneself
to do something, including doing what the
enlightened person asks.

I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM
teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow
inevitably from the rest of his teaching about
the laws of nature and the 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

  You certainly can assume that. But my point is that
  you can believe the enlightened person is acting in
  accord with the laws of nature and still choose not
  to do what the person says--just as if you made the
  assumption you cite--without being inconsistent.
  
  In other words, it makes no difference what you
  believe; you don't get extra karmic credit for doing
  what the enlightened person says *just because* you
  consider them enlightened.
 
 Actually according to the Guru portions of the scriptures you must do
 what he says. According to this model no matter what you do in an
 unenlightened state your choice is not as perfect as the enlightened
 man's.  This is one of the more philosophically bogus aspects of this
 teaching ethically. 
 
 Being around Maharishi, he made it very clear that saying no was not
 an option if you wanted to stick around.  acting in accordance with
 the desires of the master was really the only technique Maharishi
 himself claimed to have used to achieve his state. And it was the
 guiding principle of all staff's activities.  
 
 Even famous guys like Elvis didn't keep people around him who said
 no.   Guys who present themselves as enlightened masters don't give
 access to people who even give them a I'll think about it or not
 right now.  This even happens in corporate cultures as we have seen
 from the problems in American companies like Enron and the mortgage
 industry.  
 
 This represents the two different experiences: meditating without
 being in his organization, and anyone who spent time on a full time
 program.  

Yes, this DOES seem to be a BIG deal. I'm trying to get clear in my
head what it amounts to. 

The paradox of MMY as I see it was that on the one hand he taught
(originally) a technique for householders, but to mass-duplicate
(market) that technique he needed folks to adopt a non-householder
lifestyle.

Grizzly, bearded, Marxists would call this a contradiction. (Or
dialectic which has less negative connotations)

 We do not appose  was the mantra for the full-timers who
 wanted to stick around.  And as middle-plus aged adults it is much
 easier to say I would never just do something because they told me
 to.  But when you are in your 20's surrounded by people in their 30's
 and 40's taking direction was how you learned what your feelings were
 about what was right or wrong.  Everything was kind of presented as a
 test of loyalty.  I'm just glad that his group didn't swing too far
 into illegal activities beyond financial crimes that I was aware of. 
 I would hope my upbringing would have allowed me to say no, but it
 would have been a problem because of the fallout. Perhaps some people
 who spent more time around him can give some examples of Maharishi
 telling people to do illegal things and what happened if they said
no. 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
  wrote:

snip
 As long as you are talking about an organization
 that believes to its core that an enlightened being
 is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
 an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
 action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that
 organization admitting publicly that anything it
 did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly
 enlightened leader* could have been anything less
 than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen.

As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't
the only one), this is a misinterpretation.

There are two courses of action involved in
such a situation. One is the enlightened person
saying, Do this, and the other is the folks
listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that.

It's entirely possible that the first was right
action and the second wrong action. For all
we know, right action for those listening to
the enlightened person would be to say, No, I
ain't gonna do that.
   
   But there is another course of action, you can assume 
   that the enlightened person is no more or less likely
   to be wrong than anyone else and, like everyone else,
   is acting from a standpoint of what he has learned in
   his life.
  
  You certainly can assume that. But my point is that
  you can believe the enlightened person is acting in
  accord with the laws of nature and still choose not
  to do what the person says--just as if you made the
  assumption you cite--without being inconsistent.
  
  In other words, it makes no difference what you
  believe; you don't get extra karmic credit for doing
  what the enlightened person says *just because* you
  consider them enlightened.
  
   From my long experience with TMers, MMY saying
 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... 
wrote:

 I remember MMY talking about free will he said
 we have free will when we are no longer a football
 of life and our will becomes the will of God. The
 enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done,
 and this is right action.

Paradoxically, it isn't free will if the individual
attributes authorship of the choice of action to
him/herself.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@
 wrote:
   
I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will
when we are no longer a football of life and our will
becomes the
will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be
 done,
and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in.
   
   
   This is one of those examples where Maharishi's lack of philosophy
   training becomes problematic.  
  
  Beg to differ... what training falsifies that idea? I don't see it.
 
 Training in the contradictory dilemmas caused by taking each position.
  It is an unresolved issue in philosophy.  It is mostly used as a way
 to train philosophical reasoning but the question itself is not
 answered by saying the guy is in UC.  

Agreed. 

But if MMY was a philosopher, wouldn't we have to say his position was
(officially): Try to obtain enlightenment; but in the meantime 
follow the dictats of your religion (or whatever).

This is because (philosophically speaking) he was an ethical
pessimist: the reasoning mind is inadequate to figure out real moral
dilemmas. MMY follows Plato (Socrates): good acts are based on good
knowledge (bad acts are based on ignorance, not evil tendencies).
Without Knowledge, your buggered frankly. Good Intentions are of no
use. (The message of the Bhagavad Gita).


 People without training in
 philosophy tend to have an unwarranted confidence in their
 philosophical arguments without out knowing that more brilliant minds
 than theirs have been over this ground already.   Studying philosophy
 gives you a sense of humility about human knowledge.  It takes away
 some of the glib summations of perennial questions which have no
 definite solutions because much of what it deals with is unknown to
 humans. (even ones who wear special clothes)  
 
  
   If you can only act in accord with a
   predetermined program, then that is not FREE!  
  
  Yes, but that may be just semantics? 
 
 They are defined with opposite values.  
 
  
  I suppose if you followed Spinoza, you might argue that there is no
  free will. But you could (perhaps!) argue that the deep realisation
  of that fact in itself changes your behaviour. Which creates a sort
 of paradox I suppose (as in quantum mechanics where the act of
  observation changes the nature of the observed). I think I see MMY's
  position as along those lines (I think!) 
 
 You lost me when you used the physics poetry but Spinoza represents
 one aspect of this argument.  My point is that today we have the
 benefit of both arguments for human free will and determinism and now
 educate people can't make a glib statement that it is resolved, which
 Maharishi attempted to do with his higher states model.
 
  
   He seemed happy to just
   put out contradictory statements as profundities instead of
admitting
   that the philosophical problem of free will and determinism is not
   solved by being in some super state of consciousness.  It remains a
   contradiction and humans really don't know if they are acting freely
   or are the puppets of intergalactic children who just got the new
   Earthlings Wii program for their planet's advanced wireless
computer
   game's Milky Way edition.  (I am sooo going back on my meds after I
   post this.)
   
   
   

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
 wrote:
 
 snip
  As long as you are talking about an organization
  that believes to its core that an enlightened being
  is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
  an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
  action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that
  organization admitting publicly that anything it
  did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly
  enlightened leader* could have been anything less
  than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen.
 
 As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't
 the only one), this is a misinterpretation.
 
 There are two courses of action involved in
 such a situation. One is the enlightened person
 saying, Do this, and the other is the folks
 listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that.
 
 It's entirely possible that the first was right
 action and the second wrong action. For all
 we know, right action for those listening to
 the enlightened person would be to say, No, I
 ain't gonna do that.
 
 Refusing to do it would not imply that the
 enlightened person was wrong in the sense of 
 being in tune with the laws of nature for
 having told them to do whatever it was, nor
 would it necessarily make 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:
snip
  It is an unresolved issue in philosophy.  It is
 mostly used as a way to train philosophical
 reasoning but the question itself is not 
 answered by saying the guy is in UC.

How could a question that is resolved only in
UC be resolvable in philosophy when philosophy
itself is dualistic?

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote:

 But if MMY was a philosopher, wouldn't we have to say his position 
 was (officially): Try to obtain enlightenment; but in the meantime 
 follow the dictats of your religion (or whatever).
 
 This is because (philosophically speaking) he was an ethical
 pessimist: the reasoning mind is inadequate to figure out real moral
 dilemmas. MMY follows Plato (Socrates): good acts are based on good
 knowledge (bad acts are based on ignorance, not evil tendencies).
 Without Knowledge, your buggered frankly. Good Intentions are of no
 use. (The message of the Bhagavad Gita).

Hmmm. I thought that the message of the 
Bhagavad-Gita was, Kill the people the
Big Blue Guy tells you to kill. Even if 
he's fictional he knows better than you 
do.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Duveyoung]

authfriend wrote:
 How could a question that is resolved only in UC be resolvable in
philosophy when philosophy itself is dualistic?


Edg:

Words, words, words.  Are we really still battling to be the ultimate
definer of words?

Like:  resolvable.

What COULDN'T that mean?  My contentment that something has been
resolved may irk another person who has differing standards, so then
it becomes a matter of which person KNOWS what a resolution is, and
surely, if anything, these be muddy waters, matey.  A kid hit by a car
might accept an ice cream cone as a full measure of atonement from the
driver, right?

Has the concept, only resolvable in UC, any chance at all to trigger
the same meaning in even the most harmonious minds?  Extremely
doubtful, right?

So why bother except as a sorta contest of philosophical stamina? 
Whoever quits the discussion first loses and that's it?  Pretty
stupid, right?  Yet, isn't that commonly seen here?

I so seldom see anyone agreeing with anyone about anything here unless
the folks were already in agreement, and the exchange is really only a
mutual admiration dealeebopper.  

Do any of you folks out there actually, you know, feel fulfilled when
your post gets zero or negative or troll replies?  Probably not.  And
if one of your buddies gives you a high five, that can hardly be
considered validation when those who oppose are still on the stump
with megaphones.  Why post except as an exercise in thinking aloud,
and if so, why get bothered by the lack of harmony with others who
have various IQs, histories, morals, etc.?  

I have been s guilty of being serious here that it would be a
joke if I tried to toss even a pebble at anyone for this gimme-closure
addiction.

Yet how each and all long for closure, completion, agreement, harmony,
peace.  

Or, at least we say that we long so, but the assertion becomes suspect
the more incidents repeatedly show our pissy knee jerk natures that
arise when the heat in the kitchen drives us from intimacy and out
into our parlors, basements, attics where other discussions can be
safely handled while the real issues lay untouched in the kitchen.

So, here's my nod, my touching my hat's brim to the likes of Curtis
(there are several here who are) for his ability to dig deeper than
most into another's mind without a cynical and off-putting rancor.

Not a chance in hell that Curtis can define resolved, but at least
when he tries, we all get closer to what our own private definitions
really are by comparing our POVs with his.

Thanks, C.  Ya feel fatherly most days -- hope you feel that that's a
compliment.

Edg

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 snip
   It is an unresolved issue in philosophy.  It is
  mostly used as a way to train philosophical
  reasoning but the question itself is not 
  answered by saying the guy is in UC.
 
 How could a question that is resolved only in
 UC be resolvable in philosophy when philosophy
 itself is dualistic?

I don't believe that this it is a meaningful concept to claim that UC
resolves philosophical issues like free will and determinism.  We
might as well replace UC with magic.

When you achieve a magical state of mind then there will be no
problems and the opposing concepts of free will and determinism will
be resolved.

Plus it misses the intellectual exercise that discussing these issues
provides.  The point is to understand that thinking about topics like
this is not simple.  Claiming to have solved it with a state of
consciousness is like claiming that your calculator has already solved
all math problems so we should eliminate math from the classrooms.  It
is good for humans to go deeply into issues so they realize that we
live in a world of mystery rather than a simple world that can be
summed up with a phrase like: In UC the contradictions we find in the
world of duality are resolved because we will be living in a world of
Unity and everything we do will be in accordance with all the laws of
nature and all the trees will have leaves made out of that gummie bear
material but they will taste like Pina Coladas and they wont pull your
freak'n filling out when you eat them.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[curtisdeltablues]

 This is because (philosophically speaking) he was an ethical
 pessimist: the reasoning mind is inadequate to figure out real moral
 dilemmas. MMY follows Plato (Socrates): good acts are based on good
 knowledge (bad acts are based on ignorance, not evil tendencies).
 Without Knowledge, your buggered frankly. Good Intentions are of no
 use. (The message of the Bhagavad Gita).
 

That was interesting.  Thanks for advancing this discussion.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@
  wrote:

 I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have
free will
 when we are no longer a football of life and our will
 becomes the
 will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be
  done,
 and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this
chime in.


This is one of those examples where Maharishi's lack of philosophy
training becomes problematic.  
   
   Beg to differ... what training falsifies that idea? I don't
see it.
  
  Training in the contradictory dilemmas caused by taking each position.
   It is an unresolved issue in philosophy.  It is mostly used as a way
  to train philosophical reasoning but the question itself is not
  answered by saying the guy is in UC.  
 
 Agreed. 
 
 But if MMY was a philosopher, wouldn't we have to say his position was
 (officially): Try to obtain enlightenment; but in the meantime 
 follow the dictats of your religion (or whatever).
 
 This is because (philosophically speaking) he was an ethical
 pessimist: the reasoning mind is inadequate to figure out real moral
 dilemmas. MMY follows Plato (Socrates): good acts are based on good
 knowledge (bad acts are based on ignorance, not evil tendencies).
 Without Knowledge, your buggered frankly. Good Intentions are of no
 use. (The message of the Bhagavad Gita).
 
 
  People without training in
  philosophy tend to have an unwarranted confidence in their
  philosophical arguments without out knowing that more brilliant minds
  than theirs have been over this ground already.   Studying philosophy
  gives you a sense of humility about human knowledge.  It takes away
  some of the glib summations of perennial questions which have no
  definite solutions because much of what it deals with is unknown to
  humans. (even ones who wear special clothes)  
  
   
If you can only act in accord with a
predetermined program, then that is not FREE!  
   
   Yes, but that may be just semantics? 
  
  They are defined with opposite values.  
  
   
   I suppose if you followed Spinoza, you might argue that there is no
   free will. But you could (perhaps!) argue that the deep realisation
   of that fact in itself changes your behaviour. Which creates a sort
  of paradox I suppose (as in quantum mechanics where the act of
   observation changes the nature of the observed). I think I see MMY's
   position as along those lines (I think!) 
  
  You lost me when you used the physics poetry but Spinoza represents
  one aspect of this argument.  My point is that today we have the
  benefit of both arguments for human free will and determinism and now
  educate people can't make a glib statement that it is resolved, which
  Maharishi attempted to do with his higher states model.
  
   
He seemed happy to just
put out contradictory statements as profundities instead of
 admitting
that the philosophical problem of free will and determinism is not
solved by being in some super state of consciousness.  It
remains a
contradiction and humans really don't know if they are acting
freely
or are the puppets of intergalactic children who just got the new
Earthlings Wii program for their planet's advanced wireless
 computer
game's Milky Way edition.  (I am sooo going back on my meds
after I
post this.)



 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
  wrote:
  
  snip
   As long as you are talking about an organization
   that believes to its core that an enlightened being
   is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
   an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
   action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that
   organization admitting publicly that anything it
   did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly
   enlightened leader* could have been anything less
   than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen.
  
  As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't
  the only one), this is a misinterpretation.
  
  There are two courses of action involved 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote:
 
  But if MMY was a philosopher, wouldn't we have to say his position 
  was (officially): Try to obtain enlightenment; but in the meantime 
  follow the dictats of your religion (or whatever).
  
  This is because (philosophically speaking) he was an ethical
  pessimist: the reasoning mind is inadequate to figure out real moral
  dilemmas. MMY follows Plato (Socrates): good acts are based on good
  knowledge (bad acts are based on ignorance, not evil tendencies).
  Without Knowledge, your buggered frankly. Good Intentions are of no
  use. (The message of the Bhagavad Gita).
 
 Hmmm. I thought that the message of the 
 Bhagavad-Gita was, Kill the people the
 Big Blue Guy tells you to kill. Even if 
 he's fictional he knows better than you 
 do.  :-)


Er...it was? Dang! My bad.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[curtisdeltablues]

 Not a chance in hell that Curtis can define resolved, but at least
 when he tries, we all get closer to what our own private definitions
 really are by comparing our POVs with his.

That is a nice reputation to try to live up to Edg.  This is my goal:
to articulate where I stand on issues and compare them to whoever is
expressing theirs.  Sometimes I fall short of this ambition and just
appear dickish in discussion.  But I am not expecting perfection from
myself.  I know too well who I am dealing with at this end of any
conversation!

The ability to discuss topics without putting the discussor on trial
as a person isn't always easy, but I think some good strides have been
made on FFL towards that ideal.  I certainly appreciate a place where
I can articulate my thoughts in writing about complex topics.  It
really isn't about the movement for me at all at this stage.  Being
intellectually stimulated enough to write regularly is reason enough
for me to check in daily.

Thanks for the kind intentions behind your post Edg.  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote:

 authfriend wrote:
  How could a question that is resolved only in UC be resolvable in
 philosophy when philosophy itself is dualistic?
 
 
 Edg:
 
 Words, words, words.  Are we really still battling to be the ultimate
 definer of words?
 
 Like:  resolvable.
 
 What COULDN'T that mean?  My contentment that something has been
 resolved may irk another person who has differing standards, so then
 it becomes a matter of which person KNOWS what a resolution is, and
 surely, if anything, these be muddy waters, matey.  A kid hit by a car
 might accept an ice cream cone as a full measure of atonement from the
 driver, right?
 
 Has the concept, only resolvable in UC, any chance at all to trigger
 the same meaning in even the most harmonious minds?  Extremely
 doubtful, right?
 
 So why bother except as a sorta contest of philosophical stamina? 
 Whoever quits the discussion first loses and that's it?  Pretty
 stupid, right?  Yet, isn't that commonly seen here?
 
 I so seldom see anyone agreeing with anyone about anything here unless
 the folks were already in agreement, and the exchange is really only a
 mutual admiration dealeebopper.  
 
 Do any of you folks out there actually, you know, feel fulfilled when
 your post gets zero or negative or troll replies?  Probably not.  And
 if one of your buddies gives you a high five, that can hardly be
 considered validation when those who oppose are still on the stump
 with megaphones.  Why post except as an exercise in thinking aloud,
 and if so, why get bothered by the lack of harmony with others who
 have various IQs, histories, morals, etc.?  
 
 I have been s guilty of being serious here that it would be a
 joke if I tried to toss even a pebble at anyone for this gimme-closure
 addiction.
 
 Yet how each and all long for closure, completion, agreement, harmony,
 peace.  
 
 Or, at least we say that we long so, but the assertion becomes suspect
 the more incidents repeatedly show our pissy knee jerk natures that
 arise when the heat in the kitchen drives us from intimacy and out
 into our parlors, basements, attics where other discussions can be
 safely handled while the real issues lay untouched in the kitchen.
 
 So, here's my nod, my touching my hat's brim to the likes of Curtis
 (there are several here who are) for his ability to dig deeper than
 most into another's mind without a cynical and off-putting rancor.
 
 Not a chance in hell that Curtis can define resolved, but at least
 when he tries, we all get closer to what our own private definitions
 really are by comparing our POVs with his.
 
 Thanks, C.  Ya feel fatherly most days -- hope you feel that that's a
 compliment.
 
 Edg

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  snip
It is an unresolved issue in philosophy.  It is
   mostly used as a way to train philosophical
   reasoning but the question itself is not 
   answered by saying the guy is in UC.
  
  How could a question that is resolved only in
  UC be resolvable in philosophy when philosophy
  itself is dualistic?
 
 I don't believe that this it is a meaningful
 concept to claim that UC resolves philosophical
 issues like free will and determinism.

What I was getting at is that the question itself
is not answered by saying 'the guy is in UC' is
meaningless, or tautological. If there *is* a
nondual state of consciousness in which the question
is resolved, *of course* it wouldn't resolve the
issue from a dualistic state of consciousness. So
you aren't really saying anything; that isn't a
valid criticism.

It's like saying you can't get the full effect of
three dimensions from a two-dimensional drawing.
You don't have any problem understanding that that
statement is tautological, because you know that
both three dimensions and two dimensions exist
and what they look like. You wouldn't take the
statement as a valid criticism of the claim that
things look different in three dimensions.

snip
 Plus it misses the intellectual exercise that
 discussing these issues provides.  The point is
 to understand that thinking about topics like
 this is not simple.  Claiming to have solved it
 with a state of consciousness is like claiming
 that your calculator has already solved all math
 problems so we should eliminate math from the
 classrooms.

More like we should all get calculators and learn
to use them.

But in the case of the free will-determinism issue,
that there is claimed to be a resolution in UC 
doesn't preclude engaging with the apparent
contradiction on the dualistic level, using the
most sophisticated philosophical tools, if only to
arrive at the realization that it *isn't* 
resolvable on that level.

In fact, if you *don't* do that, then you don't
have any basis for curiosity about whether there is
or is not a further level on which it *is* resolved,
and how such a disparity between states of
consciousness might exist.

  It
 is good for humans to go deeply into issues so
 they realize that we live in a world of mystery
 rather than a simple world that can be summed up
 with a phrase like: In UC the contradictions we
 find in the world of duality are resolved 
 because we will be living in a world of Unity
 and everything we do will be in accordance with
 all the laws of nature

Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more*
mysterious statement than that! A world which 
appears to be fraught with intractable 
contradictions but in which a perspective is
possible that resolves them seems to me to be a
much more interesting and complex world than one
in which they stay intractable.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  -snip-
   you are talking about an organization
   that believes to its core that an enlightened being
   is in tune with the laws of nature and that such
   an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong
   action, 
  -snip-
 
 
 
  OF COURSE an enlightened person is in tune with the universe. 
that 
 is 
  what makes them enlightened; that is the practical definition. 
if 
 they 
  weren't in tune with the universe, they wouldn't be enlightened; 
  enlightenment then has no practical value. 
 
 In tune with the universe What does that even mean?

having desires fulfilled as effortlessly as possible, for example. i 
was talking with a friend about this, how we can undertake an action 
to suit one purpose, and the next day for example it turns out we 
needed to do such a thing in order for another desire to be 
fulfilled. there are myriad ways in which this works.

when you ask what does that even mean, all i can suggest is keep 
doing TM and it will become self evident.
 
 How can you be out of tune with it? 

being miserable is a great indicator that things are seriously out 
of phase.

Do you think that the
 universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves
 and gives us nature support? 

unmistakably. however most people understand that to be a code of 
behavior or a set of rules to follow. it is dynamic. if you have 
ever heard sports people talking about being in the flow, it is like 
that only all the time. being awkward and miserable isn't natural.

is TM the best way to get
 the universe on our side.

i don't know if it the best way, since that is unquantifiable, but 
i do think it is reliable, mechanical and effective, yes.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[curtisdeltablues]

I know you have given this topic some deep thought Judy and it shows.
 Interesting response.  You put your finger on where the line is drawn
between believing that such a non-dual state is possible and not.

 Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more*
 mysterious statement than that! A world which 
 appears to be fraught with intractable 
 contradictions but in which a perspective is
 possible that resolves them seems to me to be a
 much more interesting and complex world than one
 in which they stay intractable.

And for people willing to test the theory all I can say is please
keep in touch!  I am just not inclined to believe that it is possible
but I am the first to cop to the limits of what I know.

None of my reference experiences in and out of the movement give me me
confidence in this claim.  I'm not sure I feel that this contradiction
needs resolving.  It seems fine to me just as the mystery it seems to be.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   snip
 It is an unresolved issue in philosophy.  It is
mostly used as a way to train philosophical
reasoning but the question itself is not 
answered by saying the guy is in UC.
   
   How could a question that is resolved only in
   UC be resolvable in philosophy when philosophy
   itself is dualistic?
  
  I don't believe that this it is a meaningful
  concept to claim that UC resolves philosophical
  issues like free will and determinism.
 
 What I was getting at is that the question itself
 is not answered by saying 'the guy is in UC' is
 meaningless, or tautological. If there *is* a
 nondual state of consciousness in which the question
 is resolved, *of course* it wouldn't resolve the
 issue from a dualistic state of consciousness. So
 you aren't really saying anything; that isn't a
 valid criticism.
 
 It's like saying you can't get the full effect of
 three dimensions from a two-dimensional drawing.
 You don't have any problem understanding that that
 statement is tautological, because you know that
 both three dimensions and two dimensions exist
 and what they look like. You wouldn't take the
 statement as a valid criticism of the claim that
 things look different in three dimensions.
 
 snip
  Plus it misses the intellectual exercise that
  discussing these issues provides.  The point is
  to understand that thinking about topics like
  this is not simple.  Claiming to have solved it
  with a state of consciousness is like claiming
  that your calculator has already solved all math
  problems so we should eliminate math from the
  classrooms.
 
 More like we should all get calculators and learn
 to use them.
 
 But in the case of the free will-determinism issue,
 that there is claimed to be a resolution in UC 
 doesn't preclude engaging with the apparent
 contradiction on the dualistic level, using the
 most sophisticated philosophical tools, if only to
 arrive at the realization that it *isn't* 
 resolvable on that level.
 
 In fact, if you *don't* do that, then you don't
 have any basis for curiosity about whether there is
 or is not a further level on which it *is* resolved,
 and how such a disparity between states of
 consciousness might exist.
 
   It
  is good for humans to go deeply into issues so
  they realize that we live in a world of mystery
  rather than a simple world that can be summed up
  with a phrase like: In UC the contradictions we
  find in the world of duality are resolved 
  because we will be living in a world of Unity
  and everything we do will be in accordance with
  all the laws of nature
 
 Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more*
 mysterious statement than that! A world which 
 appears to be fraught with intractable 
 contradictions but in which a perspective is
 possible that resolves them seems to me to be a
 much more interesting and complex world than one
 in which they stay intractable.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Marek Reavis]

Comment below:

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
no_re...@... wrote:[in reply to:] Do you think that the
universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves
and gives us nature support? 

**snip
 
 unmistakably. however most people understand that to be a code of 
 behavior or a set of rules to follow. it is dynamic. if you have 
 ever heard sports people talking about being in the flow, it is 
like 
 that only all the time. being awkward and miserable isn't natural.

**snip to end

The whole idea of support of nature makes sense to me in a Taoist 
fashion.  A way of describing the absence of that support is 
turbulence as opposed to flow; however, turbulence is also flow, but 
at a different scale than that of the individual and, consequently, 
it is experienced as some degree of incoherence and frustration.  

But the interruption of the individual's sense of being in the flow 
is merely the inability of the individual to immediately or 
gracefully adjust his or her position relative to the introduction of 
turbulence.  

And the larger flow of life, the great tidal force within which we 
find ourselves operating, follows its own direction and carries all 
along with it regardless of what we do or don't do.  It seems likely 
that our individual actions are no more than Brownian motion that 
have no larger consequences beyond the very circumscribed 
circumstances of our lives.  

Within the small boat that we share with whatever shipmates we've 
picked up along the way, civility and affection and good humor make 
all the difference, but the larger current carries everything along 
towards its own ends that likely have no consideration or care of our 
small projects and concerns.

**

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis 
reavisma...@... wrote:

 Comment below:
 
 **
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
 no_reply@ wrote:[in reply to:] Do you think that the
 universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves
 and gives us nature support? 
 
 **snip
  
  unmistakably. however most people understand that to be a code 
of 
  behavior or a set of rules to follow. it is dynamic. if you have 
  ever heard sports people talking about being in the flow, it is 
 like 
  that only all the time. being awkward and miserable isn't 
natural.
 
 **snip to end
 
 The whole idea of support of nature makes sense to me in a 
Taoist 
 fashion.  A way of describing the absence of that support is 
 turbulence as opposed to flow; however, turbulence is also flow, 
but 
 at a different scale than that of the individual and, 
consequently, 
 it is experienced as some degree of incoherence and frustration.  
 
 But the interruption of the individual's sense of being in the 
flow 
 is merely the inability of the individual to immediately or 
 gracefully adjust his or her position relative to the introduction 
of 
 turbulence.  

yes, i agree with this, and this i experience as the difference 
between enlightenment and non-enlightenment. change in life is 
inevitable, even welcome, and the degree to which we instantly 
adjust and integrate with change makes all of the difference, like 
how a bird adjust to a shifting or increased wind current without 
thinking twice about it.

funny how animals are automatically enlightened in this way, yet 
have far fewer capabilities than us humans. humans on the other hand 
have a far larger toolbox and yet must work hard to fully integrate 
it into the airstream of life.

 
 And the larger flow of life, the great tidal force within which we 
 find ourselves operating, follows its own direction and carries 
all 
 along with it regardless of what we do or don't do.  It seems 
likely 
 that our individual actions are no more than Brownian motion that 
 have no larger consequences beyond the very circumscribed 
 circumstances of our lives.

agreed that one life is like one thread in a massive tapestry. and 
yet, i feel much more of the overall design than i do an isolated 
mote of dust, fwiw.  
 
 Within the small boat that we share with whatever shipmates we've 
 picked up along the way, civility and affection and good humor 
make 
 all the difference, but the larger current carries everything 
along 
 towards its own ends that likely have no consideration or care of 
our 
 small projects and concerns.
 
 **

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Marek Reavis]

The easy, instantaneous in-flight correction of a bird in response to 
wind turbulence is a wonderful analogy, and thanks for that.  

It would seem to me that very few animals (if any, but perhaps some of 
the large primate cousins) besides humans have the sense of separation 
that characterizes human experience; and, consequently, there is no 
need for realization of what already is -- that's already where 
they're at.  That's why the opportunity to spend time with animals, 
and particularly wild animals whose exposure to humans is limited, is 
so valuable in a kind of mentoring way.

My own experience, like yours, isn't one of isolation, and there's a 
natural sense of belonging and completeness.  I don't presume to 
understand where this is all going, but I have trust in the system and 
circumstances that have created me that it will be fine.

Thanks again.

Marek

**  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis 
 reavismarek@ wrote:
 
  Comment below:
  
  **
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
  no_reply@ wrote:[in reply to:] Do you think that the
  universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves
  and gives us nature support? 
  
  **snip
   
   unmistakably. however most people understand that to be a code 
 of 
   behavior or a set of rules to follow. it is dynamic. if you have 
   ever heard sports people talking about being in the flow, it is 
  like 
   that only all the time. being awkward and miserable isn't 
 natural.
  
  **snip to end
  
  The whole idea of support of nature makes sense to me in a 
 Taoist 
  fashion.  A way of describing the absence of that support is 
  turbulence as opposed to flow; however, turbulence is also flow, 
 but 
  at a different scale than that of the individual and, 
 consequently, 
  it is experienced as some degree of incoherence and frustration.  
  
  But the interruption of the individual's sense of being in the 
 flow 
  is merely the inability of the individual to immediately or 
  gracefully adjust his or her position relative to the introduction 
 of 
  turbulence.  
 
 yes, i agree with this, and this i experience as the difference 
 between enlightenment and non-enlightenment. change in life is 
 inevitable, even welcome, and the degree to which we instantly 
 adjust and integrate with change makes all of the difference, like 
 how a bird adjust to a shifting or increased wind current without 
 thinking twice about it.
 
 funny how animals are automatically enlightened in this way, yet 
 have far fewer capabilities than us humans. humans on the other hand 
 have a far larger toolbox and yet must work hard to fully integrate 
 it into the airstream of life.
 
  
  And the larger flow of life, the great tidal force within which we 
  find ourselves operating, follows its own direction and carries 
 all 
  along with it regardless of what we do or don't do.  It seems 
 likely 
  that our individual actions are no more than Brownian motion that 
  have no larger consequences beyond the very circumscribed 
  circumstances of our lives.
 
 agreed that one life is like one thread in a massive tapestry. and 
 yet, i feel much more of the overall design than i do an isolated 
 mote of dust, fwiw.  
  
  Within the small boat that we share with whatever shipmates we've 
  picked up along the way, civility and affection and good humor 
 make 
  all the difference, but the larger current carries everything 
 along 
  towards its own ends that likely have no consideration or care of 
 our 
  small projects and concerns.
  
  **
 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis 
reavisma...@... wrote:

 The easy, instantaneous in-flight correction of a bird in response 
to 
 wind turbulence is a wonderful analogy, and thanks for that.  
 
 It would seem to me that very few animals (if any, but perhaps 
some of 
 the large primate cousins) besides humans have the sense of 
separation 
 that characterizes human experience; and, consequently, there is 
no 
 need for realization of what already is -- that's already where 
 they're at.  That's why the opportunity to spend time with 
animals, 
 and particularly wild animals whose exposure to humans is limited, 
is 
 so valuable in a kind of mentoring way.

yes, sometimes i will watch a bird or a squirrel in my backyard and 
just marvel silently at their grace. or even a lion (on tv) as it 
stalks and kills its prey- seems cruel and awful in a way, and yet, 
there aren't any 7-11s on the savanah :).

even the opportunity we have as humans to ponder and seek 
enlightenment is as a result of us furiously using technology in 
order to seperate ourselves from nature, and in so doing afford 
ourselves the luxury of spare time and comfort, to then find our way 
back from our isolation from the natural world, in order to 
reintegrate ourselves into the universal order and flow. 

quite a fascinating game we find ourselves playing. a game 
nonetheless with tangible benefits, and the only one imo worth 
playing with these tiny lives we are afforded. both beautiful and 
incomprehensible. 
 
 My own experience, like yours, isn't one of isolation, and there's 
a 
 natural sense of belonging and completeness.  I don't presume to 
 understand where this is all going, but I have trust in the system 
and 
 circumstances that have created me that it will be fine.

me too!
 
 Thanks again.

thank you also.
 
 Marek
 
 **  
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis 
  reavismarek@ wrote:
  
   Comment below:
   
   **
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
   no_reply@ wrote:[in reply to:] Do you think that the
   universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves
   and gives us nature support? 
   
   **snip

unmistakably. however most people understand that to be a 
code 
  of 
behavior or a set of rules to follow. it is dynamic. if you 
have 
ever heard sports people talking about being in the flow, it 
is 
   like 
that only all the time. being awkward and miserable isn't 
  natural.
   
   **snip to end
   
   The whole idea of support of nature makes sense to me in a 
  Taoist 
   fashion.  A way of describing the absence of that support is 
   turbulence as opposed to flow; however, turbulence is also 
flow, 
  but 
   at a different scale than that of the individual and, 
  consequently, 
   it is experienced as some degree of incoherence and 
frustration.  
   
   But the interruption of the individual's sense of being in the 
  flow 
   is merely the inability of the individual to immediately or 
   gracefully adjust his or her position relative to the 
introduction 
  of 
   turbulence.  
  
  yes, i agree with this, and this i experience as the difference 
  between enlightenment and non-enlightenment. change in life is 
  inevitable, even welcome, and the degree to which we instantly 
  adjust and integrate with change makes all of the difference, 
like 
  how a bird adjust to a shifting or increased wind current 
without 
  thinking twice about it.
  
  funny how animals are automatically enlightened in this way, yet 
  have far fewer capabilities than us humans. humans on the other 
hand 
  have a far larger toolbox and yet must work hard to fully 
integrate 
  it into the airstream of life.
  
   
   And the larger flow of life, the great tidal force within 
which we 
   find ourselves operating, follows its own direction and 
carries 
  all 
   along with it regardless of what we do or don't do.  It seems 
  likely 
   that our individual actions are no more than Brownian motion 
that 
   have no larger consequences beyond the very circumscribed 
   circumstances of our lives.
  
  agreed that one life is like one thread in a massive tapestry. 
and 
  yet, i feel much more of the overall design than i do an 
isolated 
  mote of dust, fwiw.  
   
   Within the small boat that we share with whatever shipmates 
we've 
   picked up along the way, civility and affection and good humor 
  make 
   all the difference, but the larger current carries everything 
  along 
   towards its own ends that likely have no consideration or care 
of 
  our 
   small projects and concerns.
   
   **
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ 
 wrote:
 
  I remember MMY talking about free will he said
  we have free will when we are no longer a football
  of life and our will becomes the will of God. The
  enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done,
  and this is right action.
 
 Paradoxically, it isn't free will if the individual
 attributes authorship of the choice of action to
 him/herself.

Exactly. In a state of simple form of awareness, witnessing, there is
a quiet place in the heart, a feeling of flowing in the now of just
being, and not doing anything (no attribution or authorship of
action). Maharishi described this as, Established in Being,
performing action. In the here and now of just being perfectly
surrendered, experience perfect action. Maharishi attuned himself to
Guru Dev, not so much on the level of action but on the level of
feeling. His one pointed devotion and perfect surrender purified his
heart. His absolute love unified with Guru Dev's love.

I feel blessed to have received hugs from Ammachi every year since
1988. She is a great Saint and was Maharishi. Her life is immersed in
absolute service and surrender to everyone just as Maharishi was to
Guru Dev and to us. Ammachi is tireless in uplifting the consciousness
of humanity just and Maharishi was. Service, surrender, devotion and
humility seems to go with the territory if one is enlightened and
living spontaneous right. To whom much is given, much is expected.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[I am the eternal]

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com wrote:


 I feel blessed to have received hugs from Ammachi every year since
 1988.


Must find infidel.  Must report infidel to Development of Consciousness
office.  Infidel has not been assimilated.  Infidel is dangerous to the
collective.  Infidel must be assimilated.  It is for the good of the
collective.  There will exist nothing but the collective.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@...
wrote:

 On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:

 
  I feel blessed to have received hugs from Ammachi every year since
  1988.


 Must find infidel.  Must report infidel to Development of
Consciousness
 office.  Infidel has not been assimilated.  Infidel is dangerous to
the
 collective.  Infidel must be assimilated.  It is for the good of the
 collective.  There will exist nothing but the collective.

  [siren]
Arrest me.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 I know you have given this topic some deep thought Judy and it shows.
  Interesting response.  You put your finger on where the line is drawn
 between believing that such a non-dual state is possible and not.
 
  Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more*
  mysterious statement than that! A world which 
  appears to be fraught with intractable 
  contradictions but in which a perspective is
  possible that resolves them seems to me to be a
  much more interesting and complex world than one
  in which they stay intractable.
 
 And for people willing to test the theory all I can say is please
 keep in touch!  I am just not inclined to believe that it is possible
 but I am the first to cop to the limits of what I know.
 
 None of my reference experiences in and out of the movement give me me
 confidence in this claim.  I'm not sure I feel that this contradiction
 needs resolving.  It seems fine to me just as the mystery it seems
to be.
 

We don't want to die and in be gone, dead forever and forgotten.   We
create myths of after life, of reincarnation, of enlightenment with
magical powers.  But no matter how many science fiction books you
read, how many religious texts, how many unexplained experiences you
might have, and how many stories you hear, you still don't know what
happens when you die. And you don't know if becoming one with nature
simply means turning into dirt.

Making your peace with this is enlightenment. 

And the universe and its mysteries go on.  

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  I know you have given this topic some deep thought Judy and it 
shows.
   Interesting response.  You put your finger on where the line is 
drawn
  between believing that such a non-dual state is possible and not.
  
   Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more*
   mysterious statement than that! A world which 
   appears to be fraught with intractable 
   contradictions but in which a perspective is
   possible that resolves them seems to me to be a
   much more interesting and complex world than one
   in which they stay intractable.
  
  And for people willing to test the theory all I can say is please
  keep in touch!  I am just not inclined to believe that it is 
possible
  but I am the first to cop to the limits of what I know.
  
  None of my reference experiences in and out of the movement give 
me me
  confidence in this claim.  I'm not sure I feel that this 
contradiction
  needs resolving.  It seems fine to me just as the mystery it seems
 to be.
  
 
 We don't want to die and in be gone, dead
 forever and forgotten.

Speak for yourself, please.

   We
 create myths of after life, of reincarnation, of enlightenment with
 magical powers.  But no matter how many science fiction books you
 read, how many religious texts, how many unexplained experiences you
 might have, and how many stories you hear, you still don't know what
 happens when you die. And you don't know if becoming one with nature
 simply means turning into dirt.
 
 Making your peace with this is enlightenment. 

Or not, as the case may be.

But what happens after death wasn't part of what
Curtis and I were talking about in any case.

 And the universe and its mysteries go on.

BTW, magical powers (above) is a weasel term
meant to denigrate the notion of siddhis. Kinda
funny how you don't seem to want to include the
possibility of siddhis among the universe's
mysteries, innit?

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgil...@...
wrote:

 Quick comments interleaved. Please do not mistake brevity for
curtness.  

I was equally brief, also not meaning to be curt. :)
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
   IIRC, Nidich is affiliated with the TMO and is a proponent of a
   cosmic level of moral development, 
   beyond the Kohlberg states.  Lots
   of theory here and not a lot of fact. Also, there is plenty of
   criticisms regarding Kohlberg and his states of moral development,
   which are based more on justice than compassion.
 
 I associate ethical behavior with 
 doing what's right, which I associate 
 with justice and fairness, not compassion. 

I also associate ethical behavior with doing what is right and what is
right is based on a large number of factors.  And sometimes it is just
hard because there are competing considerations.

Take some of the ten commandments which some say are universal
principles. Thou shall not kill.  OK, what if someone tries to kill
your wife and you need to kill him to stop? Most agree on this
exception.  

What if you are having a baby and are quite ill and may die if you go
through with the pregnancy, should you abort?  Less agreement here. 
Is it based on the probability you might die? What is the moral choice
seems to be subject to legitimate disagreement with no clear answer.
What if someone else is facing the dilemma?  Should society dictate an
answer when there is not even close to a consensus?  

Thou shalt not steal.  What about Kohlberg's example of your wife
needing  a life saving drug that is not available unless you steal it.
 If it is morally OK to steal in that circumstance should he
nevertheless be punished to discourage others from pushing the limits?
 But what about another answer:  go beg for money to get the medicine.
 Stand on the street an embarrass yourself.  Write letters to the
editor.  Call the drug company.  So maybe he should be punished unless
he tried everything else?  Is she dying tomorrow?  What are the facts?
 What are the circumstances?  What is the husband like?  What is the
best he can do?  Is that important?  I think that one of the most
important considerations in making a moral, and a just decision, is
getting all the facts.  



From my favorite show Boston Legal: Should Denny Crane get the
experimental drug even though he is not eligible for the study?  He is
going to die anyway.  Oh, but if we allow compassionate exceptions, we
will lose the ability to study to see if the experimental drug works
because the dying people will want the drug whether or not it works.
What is the right and just answer?  The needs of the many outweigh
those of the few?  



snip

 This is the nut issue here. ^ I understand 
 the gold standard of science to be the 
 longitudinal study, which may not be possible 
 in this instance. But failure to live up to 
 that standard of research does not mean all 
 other methods are invalid, does it?

Inadequate, not necessarily invalid. 
 
snip
 
 The instruction is simple and, in my 
 day, oft repeated: Do not do that which 
 you know to be wrong. So the question
 would be, in interviewing someone who
 did something the rest of us find
 morally compromised, Did you simply
 not know such an act was wrong? Or did
 you know, yet do it anyway?


But how do you decide it to be wrong?  I think we all try to do this
but we don't always examine why we believe something is wrong or
right, we don't always do a good job at putting ourselves in someone
else's shoes, and we don't always get enough facts. 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[dhamiltony2k5]

 
  Ah, thank you Ruth.  I was wondering given 
  the record. Improved 'moral 
  reasoning' is solemnly pointed to by 
  the Dr. in Hagelin's powerpoint 
  present.  Moral reasonging. It is a 
  mouthful as he says it, but oddly 
  there was not elaboration.  Moral 
  reasoning.  Improved moral reasoning 
  but a school and program with no 
  ethical code or consideration.  Not 
  a we are this and not that to be found.  
  No chart on moral behavior.  
  No limit to what they will tolerate 
  in ethical behavior.  Very nuevo.

Very nuevo.  Not classic moral philosophy neither.

 TMorg mores, 
without conscience?
'what were they thinking?' 

Emerson  los transcendentalists saw conscience as a faculty of moral 
instinct.  An inner transcendental form as they saw it to develop.  A 
faculty and a soul of a voice.  At the least, that little voice 
inside that says, No.  


Ethics: a system of moral standards or values
Conscience: as that inner faculty of moral discernment  conscience 
different from reasoning.  Conscience as that faculty of clear quiet 
brain wherein the brain receives its soul of moral guidance, its 
ethics.

Unethical.
Is the culture of the TMo without conscience or just bad ethical 
code?  Does sort of reflect on them that there is not anywhere in the 
MUM catalog a code of ethic they would stand by in their governance 
and way of doing business.  A non-tolerance of bad behavior 
anywhere.  

Spiritual Regeneration.  
Leading on Hagelin has missed a chance entirely coming off of the 
death of Maharishi to walk erect and say, We are not that… hence 
forth we will not tolerate bad behaviors in our doings… our books are 
open and our dealings will be forthright, transparent  honest from 
here on.  The past, was just a lesser state of conscience 
consciousness.  




 
 The instruction is simple and, in my 
 day, oft repeated: Do not do that which 
 you know to be wrong. So the question
 would be, in interviewing someone who
 did something the rest of us find
 morally compromised, Did you simply
 not know such an act was wrong? Or did
 you know, yet do it anyway?

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Patrick Gillam]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote:

 Like flying, TM leading to better ethics 
 is a hollow claim with plenty of counter evidence.

 
 I'm not saying that some really impulsive people 
 don't benefit in being able to think before they 
 act a bit more from the influence of
 meditation.  But the movement is not filled with 
 more ethical people than I see in an ordinary mix 
 of well educated society and it has it
 full share of criminals who meditate regularly.  

As an old-time TM teacher once pointed out 
to me, it's really the science that tells 
you whether someone's claims are valid. Any 
organization can trot out reasonably attractive 
representatives who relate inspiring anecdotes 
about their program's benefits. Or in your 
examples above, Curtis, it's easy to find 
scoundrels in the saintliest organization. 
But a strictly designed, well-controlled 
study shows you whether the program works 
regardless of the Shining Example here and 
the Sorry Disappointment there. Are you 
acquainted with the Nidiches research on 
ethics and TM? Do you have an opinion about it?

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[curtisdeltablues]

Excellent points Patrick.

 Are you 
 acquainted with the Nidiches research on 
 ethics and TM? Do you have an opinion about it?


I don't really feel qualified to understand what the research does and
does not prove.  But I'll do a search, and thanks for advancing the
discussion.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgil...@...
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote:
 
  Like flying, TM leading to better ethics 
  is a hollow claim with plenty of counter evidence.
 
  
  I'm not saying that some really impulsive people 
  don't benefit in being able to think before they 
  act a bit more from the influence of
  meditation.  But the movement is not filled with 
  more ethical people than I see in an ordinary mix 
  of well educated society and it has it
  full share of criminals who meditate regularly.  
 
 As an old-time TM teacher once pointed out 
 to me, it's really the science that tells 
 you whether someone's claims are valid. Any 
 organization can trot out reasonably attractive 
 representatives who relate inspiring anecdotes 
 about their program's benefits. Or in your 
 examples above, Curtis, it's easy to find 
 scoundrels in the saintliest organization. 
 But a strictly designed, well-controlled 
 study shows you whether the program works 
 regardless of the Shining Example here and 
 the Sorry Disappointment there. Are you 
 acquainted with the Nidiches research on 
 ethics and TM? Do you have an opinion about it?

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Patrick Gillam]

Comment below.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote:

 Excellent points Patrick.
 
  Are you 
  acquainted with the Nidiches research on 
  ethics and TM? Do you have an opinion about it?
 
 
 I don't really feel qualified to understand 
 what the research does and does not prove. 

This is the nub of the issue, isn't it? I'm 
surprised at how paltry my education has been 
regarding what constitutes good science. Even 
in journalism graduate school, the required 
course on research - which should have 
concentrated on evaluating studies - failed 
to convey anything useful. Peter Sutphen's 
critiques in this forum have been good. And 
Vaj likes to take apart TM research. Maybe if 
we posted studies here, we could evaluate them.

As I recall the Nidich research, it was well-
replicated and had impressive p-values, but
beyond that, I don't know how solid it is. 
What I do recall is that Maharishi School
and Maharishi University students scored 
real well on a Kohlberg moral development 
test, outscoring students who tried to 
develop their moral compasses using methods
Kohlberg developed. At least, that's how I
recall it from the days when I was a proponent
of such things.


 But I'll do a search, and thanks for advancing the
 discussion.
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote:
  
   Like flying, TM leading to better ethics 
   is a hollow claim with plenty of counter evidence.
  
   
   I'm not saying that some really impulsive people 
   don't benefit in being able to think before they 
   act a bit more from the influence of
   meditation.  But the movement is not filled with 
   more ethical people than I see in an ordinary mix 
   of well educated society and it has it
   full share of criminals who meditate regularly.  
  
  As an old-time TM teacher once pointed out 
  to me, it's really the science that tells 
  you whether someone's claims are valid. Any 
  organization can trot out reasonably attractive 
  representatives who relate inspiring anecdotes 
  about their program's benefits. Or in your 
  examples above, Curtis, it's easy to find 
  scoundrels in the saintliest organization. 
  But a strictly designed, well-controlled 
  study shows you whether the program works 
  regardless of the Shining Example here and 
  the Sorry Disappointment there. Are you 
  acquainted with the Nidiches research on 
  ethics and TM? Do you have an opinion about it?
 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgil...@...
wrote:

 Comment below.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote:
 
  Excellent points Patrick.
  
   Are you 
   acquainted with the Nidiches research on 
   ethics and TM? Do you have an opinion about it?
  
  
  I don't really feel qualified to understand 
  what the research does and does not prove. 
 
 This is the nub of the issue, isn't it? I'm 
 surprised at how paltry my education has been 
 regarding what constitutes good science. Even 
 in journalism graduate school, the required 
 course on research - which should have 
 concentrated on evaluating studies - failed 
 to convey anything useful. Peter Sutphen's 
 critiques in this forum have been good. And 
 Vaj likes to take apart TM research. Maybe if 
 we posted studies here, we could evaluate them.
 
 As I recall the Nidich research, it was well-
 replicated and had impressive p-values, but
 beyond that, I don't know how solid it is. 
 What I do recall is that Maharishi School
 and Maharishi University students scored 
 real well on a Kohlberg moral development 
 test, outscoring students who tried to 
 develop their moral compasses using methods
 Kohlberg developed. At least, that's how I
 recall it from the days when I was a proponent
 of such things.
 
 
  But I'll do a search, and thanks for advancing the
  discussion.
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote:
   
Like flying, TM leading to better ethics 
is a hollow claim with plenty of counter evidence.
   

I'm not saying that some really impulsive people 
don't benefit in being able to think before they 
act a bit more from the influence of
meditation.  But the movement is not filled with 
more ethical people than I see in an ordinary mix 
of well educated society and it has it
full share of criminals who meditate regularly.  
   
   As an old-time TM teacher once pointed out 
   to me, it's really the science that tells 
   you whether someone's claims are valid. Any 
   organization can trot out reasonably attractive 
   representatives who relate inspiring anecdotes 
   about their program's benefits. Or in your 
   examples above, Curtis, it's easy to find 
   scoundrels in the saintliest organization. 
   But a strictly designed, well-controlled 
   study shows you whether the program works 
   regardless of the Shining Example here and 
   the Sorry Disappointment there. Are you 
   acquainted with the Nidiches research on 
   ethics and TM? Do you have an opinion about it?
  
 

IIRC, Nidich is affiliated with the TMO and is a proponent of a
cosmic level of moral development, beyond the Kohlberg states.  Lots
of theory here and not a lot of fact. Also, there is plenty of
criticisms regarding Kohlberg and his states of moral development,
which are based more on justice than compassion.  And, his states
pertain only to moral reasoning, not to whether someone acts in a
moral or ethical way or is in any respect a good person.



 

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 
wrote:
 IIRC, Nidich is affiliated with the TMO and is a proponent of a
 cosmic level of moral development, beyond the Kohlberg states.  Lots
 of theory here and not a lot of fact. Also, there is plenty of
 criticisms regarding Kohlberg and his states of moral development,
 which are based more on justice than compassion.  And, his states
 pertain only to moral reasoning, not to whether someone acts in a
 moral or ethical way or is in any respect a good person.


Ah, thank you Ruth.  I was wondering given the record. Improved 'moral 
reasoning' is solemnly pointed to by the Dr. in Hagelin's powerpoint 
present.  Moral reasonging. It is a mouthful as he says it, but oddly 
there was not elaboration.  Moral reasoning.  Improved moral reasoning 
but a school and program with no ethical code or consideration.  Not 
a we are this and not that to be found.  No chart on moral behavior.  
No limit to what they will tolerate in ethical behavior.  Very nuevo.

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[Patrick Gillam]

Quick comments interleaved. Please do not mistake brevity for curtness.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote:

  IIRC, Nidich is affiliated with the TMO and is a proponent of a
  cosmic level of moral development, 
  beyond the Kohlberg states.  Lots
  of theory here and not a lot of fact. Also, there is plenty of
  criticisms regarding Kohlberg and his states of moral development,
  which are based more on justice than compassion.

I associate ethical behavior with 
doing what's right, which I associate 
with justice and fairness, not compassion. 

I wonder what kinds of tests people use 
to measure compassion? 

 And, his states
  pertain only to moral reasoning, not to whether someone acts in a
  moral or ethical way or is in any respect a good person.

This is the nut issue here. ^ I understand 
the gold standard of science to be the 
longitudinal study, which may not be possible 
in this instance. But failure to live up to 
that standard of research does not mean all 
other methods are invalid, does it?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 wrote:

 Ah, thank you Ruth.  I was wondering given 
 the record. Improved 'moral 
 reasoning' is solemnly pointed to by 
 the Dr. in Hagelin's powerpoint 
 present.  Moral reasonging. It is a 
 mouthful as he says it, but oddly 
 there was not elaboration.  Moral 
 reasoning.  Improved moral reasoning 
 but a school and program with no 
 ethical code or consideration.  Not 
 a we are this and not that to be found.  
 No chart on moral behavior.  
 No limit to what they will tolerate 
 in ethical behavior.  Very nuevo.

The instruction is simple and, in my 
day, oft repeated: Do not do that which 
you know to be wrong. So the question
would be, in interviewing someone who
did something the rest of us find
morally compromised, Did you simply
not know such an act was wrong? Or did
you know, yet do it anyway?

[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)

[curtisdeltablues]

 The instruction is simple and, in my 
 day, oft repeated: Do not do that which 
 you know to be wrong. So the question
 would be, in interviewing someone who
 did something the rest of us find
 morally compromised, Did you simply
 not know such an act was wrong? Or did
 you know, yet do it anyway?


Thanks to you and Ruth for continuing this interesting thread.

The know to be wrong test is too simplistic to be an ethical guide
in my opinion.  Followers of Shirea law KNOW it is right to stone
their daughters who are caught talking to a boy.  They KNOW it. 

Ethics in real life situations are complex and take work.  I think
that the view that an enlightened person will do the RIGHT thing does
a big disservice to this complexity.  It is another case where a
simple solution for a complex problem may be no solution at all.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgil...@...
wrote:

 Quick comments interleaved. Please do not mistake brevity for curtness.
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
   IIRC, Nidich is affiliated with the TMO and is a proponent of a
   cosmic level of moral development, 
   beyond the Kohlberg states.  Lots
   of theory here and not a lot of fact. Also, there is plenty of
   criticisms regarding Kohlberg and his states of moral development,
   which are based more on justice than compassion.
 
 I associate ethical behavior with 
 doing what's right, which I associate 
 with justice and fairness, not compassion. 
 
 I wonder what kinds of tests people use 
 to measure compassion? 
 
  And, his states
   pertain only to moral reasoning, not to whether someone acts in a
   moral or ethical way or is in any respect a good person.
 
 This is the nut issue here. ^ I understand 
 the gold standard of science to be the 
 longitudinal study, which may not be possible 
 in this instance. But failure to live up to 
 that standard of research does not mean all 
 other methods are invalid, does it?
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 wrote:
 
  Ah, thank you Ruth.  I was wondering given 
  the record. Improved 'moral 
  reasoning' is solemnly pointed to by 
  the Dr. in Hagelin's powerpoint 
  present.  Moral reasonging. It is a 
  mouthful as he says it, but oddly 
  there was not elaboration.  Moral 
  reasoning.  Improved moral reasoning 
  but a school and program with no 
  ethical code or consideration.  Not 
  a we are this and not that to be found.  
  No chart on moral behavior.  
  No limit to what they will tolerate 
  in ethical behavior.  Very nuevo.
 
 The instruction is simple and, in my 
 day, oft repeated: Do not do that which 
 you know to be wrong. So the question
 would be, in interviewing someone who
 did something the rest of us find
 morally compromised, Did you simply
 not know such an act was wrong? Or did
 you know, yet do it anyway?