--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> > <anartaxius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > As to the various flavours of those who believe in various 
> > > interpretations of reality, I recall reading a comment on 
> > > atheism somewhere that those who believe atheism is like a 
> > > religious belief are looking at the situation in the same 
> > > way a person imagines that baldness is a hair color. There 
> > > do seem to be those like this.
> > 
> > Excellent post. I had never heard the baldness analogy but 
> > it will become a part of my future raps off the board.
> 
> This IS indeed a fine analogy, Xeno, and one that 
> extends far beyond the topic of atheism vs. believerism.
> 
> I would suggest that it also covers the good/bad, for/
> against, you're-either-with-us-or-against-us duality
> that one sees so often on this forum coming from TM 
> TBs. This black-and-white oversimplicity rears its ugly
> head almost every time someone proffers a criticism of
> TM, the TMO, or Maharishi that they can't intellectually
> counter or (truth be told) even deal with. So what they
> do instead is to fall back on the Classic Cult Behavior
> of implying (or stating outright) that there is something
> WRONG with the person who would post such a criticism. 
> 
> They're an "enemy of the movement," or "paid by the CIA
> or the Dalai Lama or *someone* to diss what we believe
> in," or "their minds have deteriorated," or they're 
> "sneering, judgemental [sic], dismissive, and cynical."
> 
> Methinks such tactics are very MUCH like thinking bald-
> ness is a hair color. The critics are often doing nothing
> more than presenting a *lack of belief* in the things 
> that the TBs believe in, and that pisses them off. The 
> people who continually try to create and perpetuate a 
> "them vs. us" environment on FFL IMO then project their 
> *own* beliefs and tendencies to see *everything* in terms 
> of "with us or agin' us" onto those who present ideas 
> they don't like (and can't counter), and to cast
> *them* as being "enemies" or "anti-TM" or "anti-MMY."
> 
> Me, I tend to think that what some of the critics so 
> often labeled this way are doing is providing some needed
> BALANCE to the attempts by pro-TMers to keep selling it
> the same way it's always been sold. That is, based on
> a set of declarations about its supposed benefits THAT 
> HAVE NEVER WORKED OUT IN REAL LIFE. 
> 
> Stuff like "TM makes a person happier and more able to
> interact with others in a 100% positive manner," or "a
> few butt-bouncers, because their thoughts are 10,000X
> more powerful than lesser people donchaknow, can create
> world peace," or even "TM helps a person to become more
> an example of enlightened behavior." 
> 
> Yeah, right. As Michael has pointed out (while being
> labeled as many derogatory things for doing so), all 
> one has to do to see the ludicrousness of the TMO's
> sales pitch for TM is to look to the leaders of the TM
> movement itself. Maharishi found nothing whatsoever
> wrong with money-laundering, fucking his female students
> while claiming to be celibate and preaching celibacy to
> his students, changing rules willy-nilly to deprive TM 
> teachers of their earned course credits, excommunicating 
> those same teachers en masse unless they *pay him again* 
> for a second TTC course and become 'recertified', going 
> medieval on England's ass and labeling it a 'scorpion
> nation,' and spending his last days acting out King Lear,
> imploring those around him to bid for his affections
> by pledging to build the largest number of phallic
> symbols to his memory. Are you trying to tell me THAT
> is "enlightened behavior?"
> 
> Now look to the other leaders of the TM movement over
> the years, and to the crime statistics of Fairfield
> itself. Has TM worked out according to the way it's
> been sold in those instances? Has it worked out as
> advertised in *any* instances? Can the TM movement
> point to ANY human being who practiced TM -- even 
> one -- and say, "THIS is an example of a person who
> has realized their enlightenment as the result of
> practicing TM?" They cannot. 
> 
> But they continue to sell TM using the same olde
> declarations. Some critics feel that a little balance
> might be in order, to point out to lurkers and to
> potential suckers...uh, I mean meditators...that very
> few of the promises made for the benefits of TM have
> ever shown up in in real life, where the rubber meets 
> the road. 
> 
> And what happens when these critics do this? In many
> cases, the TM apologists don't even *bother* to try
> to counter the criticisms any more. They just lash 
> out at the critics and call them names, and say that
> *they* are lost in ignorance or stuck in a perpetual
> fight against TM and all that is holy. 
> 
> We aren't. Or at least I'm not. 
> 
> I think that basic TM -- taught as a technique done
> twice a day for 20 minutes and then *left there*, 
> with no followup indoctrination or attempts to sell
> TMers the worthless add-on products like the Sidhis
> or Ayurveda or Jyotish or any of that crap -- is 
> still a pretty good thing. If basic TM were still
> being offered as what it is -- a simple, easily-
> learned technique of relaxation -- and for what it's
> worth ($35 or so), I'd have NO PROBLEMS with this.
> When it's sold as it really is, as a panacea for
> all the world's problems, its propaganda delivered
> from on high by people who could not conceal their
> elitism and feelings of superiority if they tried
> (but don't even try), then I occasionally feel the
> need to present another view, and occasionally 
> a few bald facts. If the TBs want to consider those
> bald facts a type of evil, antagonistic hair color,
> well let them. I suspect that more balanced people
> actually appreciate the balance. 
> 
> Day in and day out we have people on this forum who
> have never been in the same room with Maharishi,
> and who never became TM teachers themselves, talk
> about him as if they *knew* him, what he "really"
> meant by such-and-such, and what his "real" legacy
> is. Day in and day out we have people who have 
> never in their lives practiced a form of meditation
> other than TM declare without hesitation that it's
> the BEST form of meditation on the planet. Day in
> and day out we have people parroting the idea that
> TM provides "the fastest, most effective path to
> enlightenment" when they've never in their lives
> met a person enlightened as a result of practicing
> TM, and never even had one presented to them by
> the organization selling the claims of "Best." 
> 
> I think a little balance is in order, and hope to
> provide some from time to time. If my doing so 
> occasionally causes people to act like the cultists
> they are and go all reactive and paranoid and nasty
> trying to demonize me, that's just gravy. THEY make
> my points FOR me by doing so.
>

Dear Turq, you want to make it about 'belief' when it is about ignorance.  
You'll come around.  It's about a knowing in experience.  
-Buck

Reply via email to