In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunsh...@...> wrote: > > On Sep 7, 2010, at 1:41 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > I appreciate the sentiment and the intention. But it is just not that > > easy. It is perfectly possible for a person to internally contextualize > > the fact that Maharishi was not celibate and still hold him as the second > > coming in every other way. If the discussions here have taught me > > anything, it is that there is no counter-evidence so strong that it will > > shake a person's belief in Maharishi's supernatural holiness, if that > > belief is serving a person in some way. > > Big "if" there, don't you think? > Curtis, can't one practice TM and feel it is doing a lot > for them w/out getting into the whole holiness BS thing?
Of course, we are both proof of that, but I think this is less likely at this level of involvement. The MUM curriculum is as belief agenda driven as TTC. > > > Remember Robin's air drop of pamphlets over the campus? > > Different times, my dear... > But wasn't that a gas?? :) I was curled up in my phobic response! > > > The ones that were supposed to wake us all up to the "truth"? It only > > made us cling together more strongly in our "rightness" against the common > > outside threat. > > Yeah, and look where it got us. :) > Hopefully this generation is a bit smarter. > > Sal I'm not counting on the new generation to be any less vulnerable to group-think since I don't view it as a function of intelligence. It is deep in our social programming and has served a function for thousands of years. With the really low level of general reading in this new batch I am sure what to think about the crew who will take over from us. I just know they will be doing it with more debt! >
