This discussion is fascinating to me. Both Rick's and Turq's experiences. What makes it more riveting for me is that both of you have maintained a spiritual perspective, but not one that conforms to a specific version or dogma. I can easily see that a Purusha guy would dismiss my position that the transcendent or the so-called higher states of MMY are not "all that". But seeing Purusha's reaction to Rick is even more interesting.
I think they are missing the point as I understand Rick's position. They are focusing on the details of MMY's personal weirdness or failings and missing what I think is your larger point, that MMY does not have a corner on the spiritual market and that people are well advised to have some broader experiences with other teachers if they want to pursue this path through life. (I could be wrong about what Rick believes) When I think of both Rick and Turq's points of view, what dominates in my understanding is what they include, not what they deny. The "MMY as human details" are an afterthought. Perhaps important sequentially as a way to pry your mind from total acceptance of MMY's divinity, but not the central, or even most significant point about what you now understand. I think they are lumping you in with guys like me who have left the spiritual perspective completely. We share that perspective that the details are not the central issue because in my view that MMY is just mistaken in his perspective about how valuable these states of mind are, none of his improprieties matter, they are irrelevant. I also notice that just like with our family members, we know too much to have a superficial discussion. They can't relate to guys who have left as just ordinary people. It bugs them that we know what they believe in detail and do not share the beliefs. But I couldn't care less if a person believes in MMY's world view as long as they treat me with respect. I seek out people who believe stuff I do not. It is a function of having good intellectual boundaries. I can see where someone is believing something I do not and it doesn't make me feel threatened. Who cares? We all have our own good reasons for believing the stuff we do. Finally, I was very unimpressed with the relentless personal attacks in the Purusha friend's response. In short the person was just acting like a dick. No more, no less. I would have expected a person who had devoted their lives to spiritual practice to at least clear the bar of the asshole I avoid after one short conversation at a party. The guy who says : "I tell you outright that you're deluded." I can relate to the openness that you are attempting to have these people relate to you on a personal heart level and not let the "dogma over person" vibe dominate. I'll bet there are some who can pull this off, as your sister an brother -in- law seem to pull off as well as others in Fairfield I'll bet. People who can get to that cool "agree to disagree but I love you man" level that I personally value. I don't even care if someone thinks I am deluded, but lets clink mango lassie glasses and treat each other with kindness and understanding. It takes so little personal maturity to accept that everyone does not agree with everything you value. That is not too much to ask is it? Turq's inability to get the chick to admit to being human was so telling about how "absolutely right" some people need to be. That was really a brilliant distillation of the issue here. Can you get off your high horse and be a fallible human or not? My favorite part: "You FEEL more comfortable reducing Maharishi to a relative personality, with flaws like all of us, who may know less about Vedic knowledge than some gay cowboy named Dana or Oscar or LeRoy who went to India and studied with the Hindu status quo; you don't FEEL comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of pure knowledge, the only Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas, because that would not fit into your world view and that is not how you feel comfortable with yourself." Wow! "Uh, excuse me I think I see my GF waving to me from across the room, gotta run, good luck with that, thanks for the chat, buh by." I Exit quickly without looking back or ever letting this person get eye contact again that night! Thanks for sharing these exchanges, they provide so much insight into what values I want in my life. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My friend's response: > > > > The thing is, all these oppositions you have, we could take each one, one at > a time, and examine them, like the Zimbabwe dictator, Maharishi and Mia > Farrow and the rest, the tallest building, Rajas, etc. etc. etc., but the > individual issues like these will be endless -- your list will never run out > -- because it's rooted in something deeper within you than the individual > items and examples. What I've found w/TM-X type people, and most of the > fringe roos in Ff (even the more intelligent ones, such as LB), it's kind of > like talking to the KKK. I read a book once by a journalist who went down > south and interviewed all these KKK crackers -- the leaders, the current and > former Grand Wizards and Dragons -- hoping to get at the more thoughtful and > intellectual underpinnings of their prejudices, some more valid sounding > justifications to write about (perhaps he was hoping at least for something > as intelligent sounding as the Bertrand Russell and some of the other > quotes you sent me; although, Russell, whom it sounds cool and intelligent > to quote, is really not such a good reference for a six-pack Hindu Joe like > yourself, because his empiricist philosophical school denied the very > possibility of consciousness ever experiencing consciousness). What the > journalist found was, they really had no intellectual foundations for their > beliefs. They were all a bunch of dumb-ass rednecks who had no further > justifications than, "Those bunch of goddamn coons. I hate em." > > > > We both know that your world view is not based on surface issues such as, > "What about Maharishi's praise of Robert Mugabe?" or "Well, then why didn't > they build the tallest building in the world yet?" (Arguments, as Bobby > showed, easily blown out of the murky waters of doubt.) And I'm not > comparing you to the KKK, although most of the oppositions and prejudices I > hear from the Ff fringe are no more thoughtful than racism. I am saying that > the intellectual underpinnings are simply rooted in a belief system that is > a projection of something deeper than sense data and logic; it's about how > you process that data and interpret it, which has nothing to do with > discrimination and logic, but with the feeling level, and the feeling level > is rooted in the fibers of your being, constituted by karma, gunas, planets, > the whole package of who you are. You FEEL more comfortable reducing > Maharishi to a relative personality, with flaws like all of us, who may know > less about Vedic knowledge than some gay cowboy named Dana or Oscar or LeRoy > who went to India and studied with the Hindu status quo; you don't FEEL > comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of pure knowledge, the only > Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas, because that would not fit > into your world view and that is not how you feel comfortable with yourself. > There are no plausible intellectual reasonings to justify a particular > relative world view; in the end, it's all about justifying one's individual > existence, arranging ones sense of self to survive and more comfortably "be" > in the world; thinking the way you think because of who you are, modifying > your thoughts and attitudes in a way that will allow you to feel most > resolved in your relationship with everyone around you. Character is fate. > > > > What I will argue against, Ricky, is your adhering to these lines of > reasoning, using lame examples to justify your beliefs, calling people > fundamentalists if they don't agree with you on these surface issues, and > your presenting of all these "facts" on your website to support your world > view when the real discrepancy between all these view points is not these > confused issues themselves but what lies > > deeper: the feeling level of acceptance or rejection, which is based on how > much love and how much universal sympathy and support for all beings there > is deep in one's heart. That and a degree of brainwave coherence, or lack > thereof. > > > > Amma, 'one of the beautiful flowers rising up as the Age of Enlightenment > dawns,' would never waste time putting Maharishi down. > > There's way too much love and clarity in her heart. But instead, says of > him, "The greatest meditation teacher who ever walked the earth," > > as quoted to me by one of her disciples. (I experienced her adoration on > Maharishi myself once when I spoke to her about him.) > > > > You tell me I need to challenge my assumptions because I don't FEEL like you > do about Maharishi. You use Bertrand Russell quotes to imply that I need to > see things oppositely because I'm aligned with Maharishi and support him > wholeheartedly. You tell me, in so many words, that I still stand 100% in > the Movement only because I merely believe what I've been told. You, by way > of inserting quotes, tell me I'm a fundamentalist because I am unwaveringly > devoted to the Master. Perhaps I deserve that condescending treatment > because I tell you outright that you're deluded. But Ricky, it's only your > use of these flaky superficial arguments against Maharishi that I dismiss, > so you will see through them. If you want to embrace Amma that's not an > unevolutionary thing. But your negativity masquerading as rationality, you > know better than that and need to go deeper into that universal love where > all this is resolved and there's no mucky opposition in your awareness. Yes > I'm telling you what you need because I know the Vikings and your fondness > for goats have gotten to you. > > > > You could never "dampen" the "enthusiasm or devotion" of these people, > because it is self-referral, true and real and pure. Because your "facts" > are not facts at all, but whining expressions of doubt and misinformation, > rooted in whatever feelings are there inside you. > > But truth is not based on feeling. It just is. Maybe you're the one who > needs to consider that the opposite is true. >
