--- 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
