--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Having written in creative contexts, during which I had to invent > characters and then "put myself inside their heads" to make them > believable, I've always wondered about those who feel that they can > "know" a writer from what they write. > > For example, I've heard supposedly knowledgeable critics call Stephen > King "sick" for writing some of his horror scenes, while completely > ignoring some of his more spiritual and uplifting work, such as the > noble quests and characters in, say, "The Talisman." Similarly I've seen > people describe William Peter Blatty as "obviously possessed by demons > and under the influence of Satan" for writing what others consider one > of the most Catholic (and thus religious) books ever written, "The > Exorcist." > > Having had this experience of creating characters or plotlines and then > immersing myself in them long enough to write about them in a way that > sounds realistic, I'm not convinced of people's claims to be able to > "know" any writer based on what he or she writes. I think that instead > people tend to *project* what they want to see onto a passage of > writing, and attribute to the writer emotions, thoughts, or qualities he > or she might not have had. Thus someone who already wishes to believe > that Maharishi is a Good Guy
I wonder if it would be better to say, that yogi's are neither good nor bad (affected neither by white [shukla] nor by black [kRSNa] karma); the just ARE?? karmaashuklaakRSNaM yoginaH, trividham itareSaam (YS IV 7).
