--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Well, Buck, you're entitled to your opinion and in my > > > > > opinion the contract I made with Maharishi out of love > > > > > and respect for his great gift to humanity is still valid. > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > If you're further willing to give up your right > > > > Just don't expect too many of us to have any respect > > > > for you still being this gullible this many years later. > > > > > > > > > > I opened my heart to loving Maharishi because his gift of TM uplifts the > > > consciousness of the world. Even Buck who thinks Maharishi is a skunk > > > believes this. I respect Maharishi's tireless dedication to bringing TM > > > to thousands of people who now enjoy a more fulfilling life. It's a gift > > > that keeps on giving. My love for Maharishi is born of hope for a better > > > world. Respect from hateful cynics like you, Barry, is at the bottom of > > > my list of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. > > > > I do not have a strong opinion of this matter either way. I meditated as a > > young person until I was an older person. Attended MIU from where I > > graduated in 1980. I had an entire family who meditated, two of my sisters > > were initiators but I never once felt the inkling to join them. I respected > > the technique and took it seriously. But in time, due to a number of > > factors, it fell away for me and although occasionally I choose to say my > > mantra I do not feel strongly either negatively or positively about the > > practice or Maharishi. I did not invest myself in him personally like you > > Raunchy or Barry or Robin or Buck or many others. So, while I read about > > how the people who are the enforcers in the Movement are what I would call > > dogmatic, power hungry, delusional and downright bullies my life is not > > intertwined with this and so although I react with indignation because this > > bothers me, it is not my world. > > > > On the subject of loyalty to and love for Maharishi, that appears to be a > > very personal and precious thing for Raunchy and, I am sure, for many > > others. Even if the Movement and the practice is not all it was cracked up > > to be the reality remains, for Raunchy, that she loves MMY and she feels > > like it is the right thing (in fact could probably not feel any other way, > > but she will correct me if I am wrong here) to remain steadfast in her > > promise and her devotion to him. Even if Maharishi is what Buck claims he > > was, a money-grabbing lecherous greedy man that does not change, for those > > who were touched in a very deep place by him, the reality of their > > personal, heart-felt relationship with him and it will never change. I > > believe that one's devotion to something less than perfect can purify > > things, can make them clean and can effect what may be suspect and make it, > > somehow, beautiful, keep it true. In some way the devotee can purge the > > imperfect with the perfection of their love and loyalty. So the devotee is > > unscathed even while the subject of their devotion may be corrupt. I am > > speaking not necessarily of Maharishi or TM here but in what I believe > > could apply to any number of situations. I respect utterly Raunchy's > > loyalty and trueness of heart here. Only she can understand and feel what > > motivates her and I am pretty sure it makes her the beautiful person she is > > just as the incredible human she is allows her to feel what she does. > > > > > > Your generosity of spirit and insightfulness washes over me as profound > appreciation for the sensitivity you have shown me in this post. Thank you, > dearest Ann.
This is an example of the importance of the quality of first person perspective inside postmodern metaphysics. The exchange between AWB and RD is such that it simply silences the arguments of Buck. And this is because where raunchydog holds her beliefs about Maharishi and TM is a place which allows her to defend those beliefs with more truthfulness and sincerity than the place within Buck where he is challenging those beliefs. Subjectively, that is. This is an instance where first person ontology (first person perspective: PaliGap) is decisive in creating the impression of who is 'right'. I suppose logically what this would mean is that were the roles of Buck and raunchy reversed, raunchy would be able to make the case for the change in the dome policy more persuasively than Buck could make the case for the validity of the commitment to the 'purity of the Teaching'. And yet somewhere this goes to show that in the final analysis there *is* a truth that is still tenable in holding Maharishi in one's heart as raunchy does--*because it does not make her anything but the person she is*. And, you will have to agree: raunchy commands respect--and I would say, even significant affection. The efficacy and potency of that first experience of transcending after being initiated into TM: that would eventually be destroyed if the TMO alters its present Dome policies. This would be the inevitable consequence of fundamentally changing Dome policy. But apart from the matter of the objective truth of the matter, reality indicates in this judgment that raunchy is getting more 'truth' inside her first person ontology in defense of the TMO policy than Buck is getting 'truth' inside his first person ontology in criticizing this policy. And intuitively--or even subconsciously--this is undeniable to any FFL reader who is honest. This, despite the fact that Buck is convinced he has the truth on his side. And therefore is perfectly sincere. But one other thing: I can tell Buck is not a Teacher of TM. And his project will never acquire the support that is being given in principle to raunchy's position--even though I doubt there are too many raunchys there in Fairfield. Raunchy wins at the level of vibration. And in the postmodern metaphysic of the universe, that counts more than anything else, ;-)--and AWB is just pointing this out. This connection between AWB and raunchydog pretty much brings this issue to a close. IMHO. And the clinching proof of all this? Buck will NEVER TRY TO TAKE ON THIS ARGUMENT. And why is that? Because he senses he will lose. This is the limitation of his ultimate conviction in the truth of his position. Or am I wrong about this, Buck? If you don't deal with this argument, Buck, you are fatalistically resigned to the status quo. And this has always struck me as true about you, Buck. "Salt of the earth" as undoubtedly you are.
