i am not trying to shoot you. i am curious though what it is you are arguing against. hitler aside-- i think we can all agree he was pretty much a complete asshole-- i am curious what point you are making with Shankara and GuruDev and the Maharishi. is it that you think everyone else here sees them as perfect and it is your job to inform us that they are not? is it that you don't think that they had achieved anything of substance beyond what the common man may have? you and Mr. B have set these three up quite easily as targets and i don't really -get it-.
why do you make the automatic assumption that the rest of us do not have the capacity to judge these three and reach our own conclusions? i agree with you that blind faith (despite being a damned good rock band) can be a dangerous thing. nothing wrong with faith aligned with a healthy dose of discrimination though. so this is what i am getting at. all people to me including myself and the others mentioned here are a mix of good and bad. wouldn't be human otherwise. so when i see someone being singled out for either undue praise or criticism, i want to know what the driver behind that is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > what I meant was that you have written volumes here Mr B. and has > > curtis, and if taken to task for each and every thing you have said, > > Two words: Judy Stein. Don't worry this base is covered here. Her > thoroughness is one of her best qualities. > > > you would find yourself a very poor comparison to those you easily > > denigrate. > > Not necessarily. Sometimes the criticism is wrong. If you have a > specific refutaion or explanation for the woman hating in Shankara's > most widely read book I would like to hear it. He was not only a > woman hater, he taught this perspective to others. He was an > energetic advocate of this position. > > if you will not rigorously call bullshit on yourself, > > On a daily basis. I am wrong about all sorts of things. But that's > OK cuz I don't have a title in my name that means perfection or some > godlike quality. I'm just a guy with my own opinions. Some well > thought out, others, not so much. > > you > have no business applying that term to others. hypocrisy is not > a > virtue. > > That's why I am calling out the so called Holy Tradition for its > hypocrisy. My lack of perfection is no excuse to let such opinions go > unchallenged. So I am all ears if you have a defense for what > Shankara said. But the old shoot the messenger routine isn't going to > work. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > if you and curtis held yourselves to the same standard as you > > hold > > > > the Maharishi, Guru Dev and Shakara, you would have nothing to > > say. > > > > easy to take pot shots at a word or phrase here and there to > > make > > > > your point when you don't stand behind your own thoughts and > > > > actions as diligently. glass houses. > > > > > > I would say that both Curtis and I hold ourselves > > > to FAR higher standards than either Guru Dev or > > > Shankara. We, for example, actually talk to women. > > > We, for example, don't consign a person to a role > > > simply because of their last name (in India, you > > > know exactly what caste a person is the moment you > > > hear their last name). We don't, for example, tell > > > other men to think of women ONLY as "corpses, bags > > > of urine and feces." We don't, for example, hold > > > to a tradition that teaches that the best a woman > > > can aspire to spiritually is to serve their husband > > > diligently so that they can be reborn as a man in > > > their next incarnation. Both of the men you mention > > > did all these things; we don't. > > > > > > If you extend the comparison to Maharishi, neither > > > Curtis nor I ever extorted huge sums of money from > > > their followers for projects that were never built. > > > Neither Curtis nor I ever claimed to be celibate > > > while sneaking women to our rooms and screwing them. > > > Neither Curtis nor I ever tried to scare people into > > > bouncing on their butts by telling them that the > > > world would end if they didn't. Neither Curtis nor > > > I ever reacted to someone questioning our pronounce- > > > ments by throwing them out of our organization, > > > declaring them persona non grata, and threatening > > > to do the same to any person who even talked to them. > > > Maharishi did all of these things, and more. > > > > > > You may not agree with the fact that we can both > > > care about women in general and have loving rela- > > > tionships with women in specific, and at the same > > > time have no compunctions about calling bullshit > > > on individuals who are slinging it about. To us > > > it doesn't matter whether the person slinging the > > > bullshit is crazy woman on an Internet forum or > > > a supposed "holy man." If it's bullshit, we have > > > both a right and a duty to call it what it is. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as your points on the importance of women's rights, > > of > > > > > > course I agree. I'm sure if I was a woman I would be the > > first > > > > > > to call people on sexist language for its own sake, not > > because > > > > > > it has been linked to violence. In my neighborhood it is > > > > > > violence that is linked with violence. > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact I'll join you by condemning two of the most sexist > > > > people > > > > > > in history, the Holy Tradition's own Shankara, and the woman- > > > > > > phobic Guru Dev. The Crest Jewel of Discrimination is one of > > the > > > > > > most sexist scriptures on the planet. > > > > > > > > > > > > "A wise man views women as corpses, bags of urine and > > feces." > > > > > > Shankara > > > > > > > > > > > > What a saint! > > > > > > > > > > > > And Guru Dev's refusal to be in the same room with any women > > > > sent a > > > > > > terrible message to women and men who looked at him as a > > > > spiritual > > > > > > leader. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would think any woman who is serious about women's issues > > > > would > > > > > > want to join me in condemning these two men. > > > > > > > > > > Bingo. > > > > > > > > > > That's the real issue, the one that the pseudo- > > > > > feminists on this forum are skirting. > > > > > > > > > > It's "misogynist" to call a person who is acting > > > > > like a cunt a cunt (see the following post for a > > > > > definition of that word) > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/194179 > > > > > but it's just FINE to suggest that one should think > > > > > of women as corpses to protect one's fragile male > > > > > sensibilities. > > > > > > > > > > Or to suggest, as Maharishi did, that the only valid > > > > > reason a woman should get a Ph.D. is that it makes > > > > > her "a better conversationalist for her husband." > > > > > > > > > > You see, there is "real" misogyny, and there is that > > > > > "other stuff," the behavior that all real, "spiritual" > > > > > women understand and make excuses for because it's > > > > > part of a noble, high, spiritual tradition that they > > > > > believe is more correct and in tune with the "laws > > > > > of nature" than current beliefs. > > > > > > > > > > See my next post for what's really going on with the > > > > > cries of "misogyny." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
