--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > One of the things that never ceases to amuse me is how > some long-term TMers react to having had their buttons > pushed. Their first impulse is to call the button- > pushers "liars."
Only if the button-pushers have been dishonest. > If that doesn't work -- and it hasn't, > at least with fairly objective bystanders "Work" meaning what, exactly? -- their next > impulse is to try to do the same thing to the button- > pushers that has been done to them. Thus, when someone > points out a simple truth about the spiritual teacher > they're still guru-whipped by -- and about them, for > *being* so guru-whipped -- their second impulse is to > try to rag on the button-pusher's supposed guru and > see if they can provoke a similar reaction in them. Says Barry, reacting to having his buttons pushed by simple truths about his guru Lenz (much more truthful than what he's said about MMY). Are you including Susan in your demonizations here, by the way? > The problem with this strategy is that it only works > on those who are still as guru-whipped as the people > resorting to it. It can't work on those who have > gotten to a place where they can "own their own part" > of succumbing to a guru's charms. It just did work on you, toots. You've reacted with a long self-justification, trying to repair what you perceive to be damage to your self-image, and knocking yourself out attempting to do *more* button-pushing. And much as you claim to "own your own part," you talk about Lenz a great deal here in largely favorable terms, including in this very post. You're still guru-whipped by Lenz; you're compelled to portray him as significantly "better" than Maharishi in many different respects. I never met the man, but I've heard *far* worse things about him than I've ever heard about MMY, even on alt.m.t and FFL. And that's not to mention Lenz's ignominious suicide at the age of, what, 39. For the record, I have no problem with most of what you go on to say. I disagree with it, but you're entitled to your opinion, as negative as it is about MMY, as ill-founded as I think it is. It would never occur to me to call you a liar with regard to the following: > So, for the record, and because they so desperately > want me to, I'll tell you what I see as the *only* dif- > ference between Maharishi and Rama - Frederick Lenz. > > I see both as charlatans. Period. The *only* distinction > I draw between them is the "degree of charlatanry" they > exhibited in their lives. > > For me, Rama was 75% charlatan, 25% something else. What > that "else" is I have no idea of, and no explanation for. > In contrast, for me, Maharishi was 95% charlatan, and > only 5% something else. > > Maharishi -- for me, and for many I've known who knew > both gentlemen intimately -- just was never in the same > ballpark of "possible greatness" as Rama. Lenz was smarter, > better spoken, and *far* more knowledgeable about the > sources of traditional Woo Woo he ripped off than MMY > ever was. He could give *far* better and more interesting > talks, and demonstrate powers and abilities that Maharishi > could only talk about. But he was still (IMO) 75% a char- > latan, using cheap tricks and stage presence/charisma to > suck people into projecting more onto him than was actually > there. I completely "own" the things I projected onto him > for a time, wrapped by his flash factor. The wonder, for me, > is how so many TMers managed to fall for the 5% of "else" > that Maharishi was able to exhibit, not how many managed > to fall for the 25% Rama was able to exhibit. > > There is simply no question that I might have been wrapped > by Rama's charm and charlatanry. There is little question > that I might have imagined even the 25% that *wasn't* char- > latanry. I have *no problem* saying this, and "owning" it. But here's where you go off the rails: > And this is what distinguishes me from the Maharishi TBs. No, it doesn't. Not unless you're claiming your 95%:5% opinion of MMY represents The Truth. > Not a single one of them would ever, in a million years, > be able to admit this as a possibility. I guess that's confirmation that I'm not a TB, then, because I'd admit it as a possibility. An unlikely one, in my opinion, but certainly possible. (FWIW, I think MMY was about 25% charlatan.)
