--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote: <snip> > > Just a few people here on FFL engaged in this discussion > > about a hypothetical situation, a strange topic to start with. > > It's not the 'hypothetical situation' that I'm > commenting on. It's 1) the compulsion to "rate" > teachers and techniques based on "better" and > "best" (which IS and always has been fostered > by the TM movement), and 2) the rigidity of some > of the beliefs of those who bought into it. > > > Any organization with as many current or former followers > > would have a group who would engage in this sort of stuff > > - evenif the have been meditating 20-30 years. > > Not true. You would never find people within some > of the Buddhist groups or Taoist groups I've sat in > on who would even for a moment consider "ranking" > some teacher "better" than another, or some technique > "better" than another. They'd consider that sort of > stuff infantile.
And how many Buddhist or Taoist groups that you've sat in on have as many current or former followers as the TMO, Barry? Or didn't you bother to read what you were responding to? > If so, Maharishi built his entire empire on acting > infantile, claiming that his technique was better > than any other, and encouraging his teachers and > his followers to do the same. > > And as for rigidity, just try mentioning to most > die-hard TMers that TM just might *not* be the best, > most effective technique of meditation in the world, > and watch the reaction you get. (And just watch the > reactions to me saying this from some of those very > people.) > > What I'm saying is that the tendency to think in > terms of "better" and "best" (with regard to spiritual > techniques and spiritual teachers and spirtual trad- > itions) is *built into* the TMO system, so much so that > its validity and appropriateness is never questioned. > > I'm suggesting that its validity and appropriateness > *should* be questioned, and that many TMers are so > brainwashed that they are incapable of doing so. > *Not* many members of Fairfield Life are like this, > but a few of them definitely are. Just watch. Note that while Barry attempted to disguise his first post on this topic as one critical of both current and former TMers, now it becomes clear that his intention all along was to dump on the current TMers here (specifically me and Lawson, of course). Note also that Barry levels no criticism whatsoever at Paul Mason, who does not simply claim that Guru Dev was "better" than Maharishi, but that MMY is a charlatan. All Barry's bile is reserved for the TMers who objected to such a characterization. Plus which, there was only *one* TMer who maintained that MMY had surpassed Guru Dev. And obviously that idea is very far indeed from anything MMY or the TMO promotes. Indeed, Lawson pointed out that MMY would never acknowledge anything of the sort, even to himself, let alone promote it. Lawson is entitled to his distinctly TMO-heretical opinion. I said explicitly I have no opinion either way. But Barry has managed to turn Lawson's and my contributions to the discussion into a condemnation of the entire TMO and of MMY himself. It's hard to imagine thinking that could be any more incoherent than this.
