I thought "stopping thought" was a good thing. or at a minimum a step towards a good thing. So you are complaining that some have developed a "mahavakaya" that can instantly stop thoughts? Wouldn't that actually be a good thing? :)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Recently, following up like a mindless TM robot to > a mention of the name of the Dalai Lama by someone > she doesn't like, someone posted a quote from a > Google Group. The quote indicated that the Dalai > Lama had some positive things to say about former > president George W. Bush. > > IMO, the person's intent in posting this was to > interject a "thought stopper" into the conversation. > The idea was that if the Dalai Lama said something > good about someone we all know to be thoroughly bad, > then the Dalai Lama couldn't possibly be good, either. > > This just days after doing exactly the same thing > when the name of a scientist who wrote a book saying > that in her opinion all the "quantum consciousness" > nonsense was in fact nonsense came up. The same person > posted what was clearly intended to be another "thought > stopper" by pointing to a few anonymous "reviews" of > the book on Amazon. Again, people with feeble minds > were supposed to *stop thinking* positively about the > author, and think negatively about her. > > Add to this a long history of this poster and other > posters on this forum utilizing "thought stoppers" > to demonize people they don't like. Call someone a > "liar" and (in their minds) everyone is supposed to > stop thinking of the person accused of lying as pos- > sibly having any positive qualities and instead > think of them as something less than human. Call > someone a "predator" and again the readers are sup- > posed to *stop thinking* and just write the accused > person off. > > In this post what I'm suggesting is that those who > use such "thought stoppers" are demonstrating, more > than anything else, how quickly their own thought > processes stop working. > > They lack breadth of vision and compassion. They > cannot *conceive* of a person being George W. Bush > and yet having positive qualities. To them, if Bush > is "bad," he is ALL "bad;" there can be no possible > positive qualities in the man. Those positive qual- > ities are not *possible* because he's "bad," and > if a person is "bad," he's ALL bad. That's what > they would have you believe. Therefore, if someone > like the Dalai Lama is able to meet Bush and find > something in him to praise -- anything -- then *he* > must be linked to the "bad" Bush and be "bad" > himself. > > Same with calling someone a "liar." Science tells > us that human beings tell on the average 25 lies > a day. A self-honest person can look at themselves > and realize that they tell lies, too, if only to > themselves. Only an idiot would claim, "I never > lie." But some idiots not only claim this, they > attempt to use the epithet "Liar!" as a thought > stopper. Again, the implication is that by calling > someone a "liar," you can make people think of the > person you are attempting to demonize as ALL liar. > "If they're a liar," the rationale of the thought- > stopper-hurler goes, "they are *complete* liars. > They cannot possibly have any other qualities or > attributes. *Stop thinking* of this person as > human; only think of them as a 'liar.'" > > Same with the epithet "predator." It conjures up > images of child molesters and worse. And it is > *supposed* to. Hurling the term "predator" at some- > one you don't like is designed to get people to > *stop thinking* about that person as human. They > are supposed to think of them the way YOU do, as > one-dimensional, as ONLY a "predator." > > Same with invoking "Kali Yuga" as a catch-all > excuse for why things suck. The idea is that one > can throw that term out and people will stop think- > ing that there is anything they can possibly *do* > to *change* how things suck. "You *can't* really > change it," goes the thought stopper rationale, > "because it's Kali Yuga. Things *always* suck in > Kali Yuga." > > I'm pointing this out because I think a lot of > people on this forum FALL for "thought stoppers." > The TM movement was not long on compassion. It > never taught its followers that a person could be > partly good, partly bad. The model invoked was > always the clear-cut "It's only the Pandavas and > the Kauravas, the rakshasas and the perfect saints" > scenario we see in TM stories. Black and white, no > middle ground. So if a person is characterized as > black, they are ALL black. > > As a result IMO, many people who have come out of > such an environment are easy prey for those who use > thought stoppers as a tool of debate. And the people > who *rely* on thought stoppers know this, and use > the thought stoppers as often as they possibly can. > They know that the audience they are talking to > has been taught to *despise* "shades of gray" and > the possibility of feeling compassion for someone > who has been accused of being "bad." They know that > many people coming out of a TM environment will > automatically consider George W. Bush ALL bad > simply because Maharishi once characterized him > as bad. Therefore they can "springboard" off of > that and suggest that because someone *else* they > want to demonize, like the Dalai Lama, once said > something positive about Bush, he might be ALL > bad, too. > > I think that the use of thought stoppers like this > is the sign of a lazy intellect. The person who > uses them frequently is demonstrating that they > are incapable of thinking *past* a thought stopper, > and that *their* thought processes stop at the first > convenient label. And they want you to be just like > them. >
