--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Frank McLaughlin"
> > <frank3373@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This post begs two questions: 1) was the TM org in better shape
> > > when Chopra was active in the early 90's? What is different now
> > > and then?
> > > 2) What is wrong with the current state of the TM org other than
> > > everything is too expensive (in the US), but that has been the
> > > case for a long time. -- Frank
> >
> > With all due respect, "King Tony" reacts to being
> > told the "horrible truth" that Maharishi is (wait
> > for it) mortal and can get sick like everyone else
> > with a pathological level of denial, and the only
> > two questions that this "begs" to you are about
> > the state of the TM movement?
>
> With all due respect, you assume that Chopra is telling
> the truth about telling this to Nader in the first place?
Without any respect, I should point out that
AGAIN your first reaction to hearing something
about Maharishi and/or his minions that you
don't want to hear is to suggest that the person
saying it is a LIAR.
This is *not* a healthy state of mind, Lawson.
In a post last night to Nabby, I used a quote
that he (predictably and tellingly) snipped
from his response:
> Denial. Not just a river in Egypt. It's also the
> life-blood by which TM True Believers maintain
> their belief.
Why should we not believe that this quote applies
to you as well? Whenever one of these things about
Maharishi or the TMO comes up you seem willing to
entertain any notion EXCEPT that it might be true.
As far as I know, that falls into the category of
denial.
Furthermore, why should we not assume that *in
addition to* denial your fervor to believe pretty
much anything Maharishi and the TM have said and
"defend" it here causes you to SMEAR anyone who
says differently by calling them a LIAR and calling
their motives into question?
I'm asking because it's your clear pattern. You do
this over and over and over and over and over and...
well...you get the point. All I'm saying is that
we get the point, too. You're a broken record when
it comes to "defending" Maharishi and "defending"
the TMO -- not *only* do you often (and seemingly
blindly) rush in compulsively to "defend" their
point of view, you ALSO (seemingly compulsively)
feel that you have to demonize the person or
persons who DON'T believe as you do.
The former ("defending" your beliefs) feels OK to
me, if a waste of time and effort. But the latter?
That's kinda weird and cultlike, dude, and it really
IS your pattern. It's like you are *incapable* of
coming into contact with a belief that is contrary
to your own WITHOUT attempting to smear the source
of the belief.
I think we've established here that your grudge with
Chopra is *personal*, not based on any sense of
ethics or "right behavior." YOU feel *personally*
let down by him because he refused to stay in the
tiny little TM movement pigeonhole you and Maharishi
wanted him to stay in. And it's been established over
the years that you feel a need to ACT on this grudge
by leaping into the fray and ragging on him pretty
much any time his name comes up.
None of this harms Chopra in any way. But it DOES
harm your reputation as anyone who should be paid any
attention to on this forum or any other. The grudge
and the compulsion to smear are all too evident.
Just as a suggestion (and not the first time I've
made it), isn't there a way to continue to believe
what you believe while accepting what another person
believes, and not feel compelled to trash them
*because* they don't believe what you believe?
See below.
> > Personally, I'd be more concerned that the future
> > of a 2.5 billion dollar organization and the welfare
> > or all the people who believe in it has been entrusted
> > to a crazy person.
>
> You think Chopra isn't a tad crazy too? I mean, according
> to HIM, MMY is the only person in his life he's ever met
> whom he is certain was fully enlightened....
And I have no problem with this.
First, that might be true, for him. I don't know who
he's met and not met. It wouldn't be true for me,
but I'm not Chopra.
Second, it's fine with me if YOU believe this. Again,
I don't, but I see no harm with you believing that
Maharishi was enlightened.
Third, what is wrong with either you or he believing
this? He is permitted to believe anything he wants, as
are you. You'll notice that Chopra (as far as I know)
does NOT go out of his way the way you do to trash
anyone who doesn't believe that Maharishi is enlightened.
He just presents what he believes, and allows others to
believe what they believe.
I'm suggesting that you could learn from his example.
