Wouldn't that make the critic an anti-cult cultist? In other words, this critic demonstrates exactly the same mindset as those he criticizes. Both believe they are "right" based on magical thinking, which excludes anyone else with another viewpoint. It is as if the TM critic is insisting that the TM cage sucks and instead the anti-TM cage is the one to inhabit. Kind of sad really because the critic is as blind and fundamentalist as those he thinks he is criticizing. He should instead embrace them as his brothers and sisters, fellow cultists all.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > "the "let-me-tell-you-[how-]close-I was-to Maharishi" rap that > > seems to be hard wired into these guys." > > > > Funny how both sides of the coin exhibit this conceit. There > > are a couple of our chums here on FFL who are often making > > the distinction that they were TM teachers > > Yeah, this is tricky for one of the critics in particular, > who makes a huge deal of the fact that someone who's > disagreeing with him "never met MMY" or "was never even > in the same room with MMY," whereas *he* had spent time > with MMY, as if that somehow automatically invalidated > anything the other person might say about MMY or his > teaching, and of course also automatically made the critic > *Right* about whatever *he* was maintaining. > > Curtis frequently pulls his sat-at-MMY's-feet rank too, > albeit in not so ridiculous a manner. >
