--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > I said: > > > > I thought a lot about this and kind of "felt" my way into it > > during meditation, and here's what I think (and feel). I love > > you, Bobby, Paul Morehead, Craig Pearson, my old Purusha > > buddies, and the many good souls in the movement. Most of the > > people I just mentioned love what they're doing > > and seem to be thriving doing it. > > Yes Rick, Good People doing bad things, continuing to support > such an organization as it has become.
And yet, is it our business to somehow convince them that this is what they're doing? I ask because one poster on this forum suggested as much yesterday. The implication (possibly unin- tended) of the post was that if she encountered a friend who had come to believe something that she considered untrue or even insulting to certain minorities, she'd *have* to say something to set the person right and change his or her mind, to make (not stated, but definitely implied) some kind of stand for "the truth." If one feels that, doesn't that imply that they feel that they KNOW the truth? I can't speak for you, Doug, but I DON'T know the truth. About *anything*. All I have is opinions, which as far as I can tell based on past perform- ance (no scientific tests so far...sorry, Off), are sometimes accurate, and sometimes not. Therefore, for example, when I encountered recently an old friend from the Rama trip whose ideas about him and who and what he was differed from mine, did I feel a compulsion to set her straight and convince her that my view was "right" and hers was not? I did not. I tried my best to steer the conver- sation to more pleasant neutral ground. She wouldn't be steered that way. She WAS convinced that she knew the truth, and the fact that I didn't AGREE with her truth was perceived as a failing on my part, one that it was her duty to correct. Doug, I'm not sayin' that on some days I don't agree with your assessment of the Yes-men who perpetuate some of the frauds and ethical travesties of the TM movement. But these days, I'm trying to be a bit more tolerant of such people and their beliefs. It's a compassion thang. In some cases, all that these people HAVE in life is the conviction that their beliefs equate to "truth." They have given up or given away pretty much every- thing else -- money, career, personal dreams, family, whatever -- to support the dreams of the TM movement and Maharishi. And, as Rick says above, this seems to have made some of them happy, and they seem to be thriving on it. Therefore, why should I rain on their parade and try to convince them that my "truth" is somehow better than their "truth?" They can believe what they believe all day, every day for the rest of their lives and it doesn't affect me and what I believe in any way. If they started gettin' active in guvmint and passing laws that tried to *make* me believe the things that they believe, I might have some reason to speak up. But as long as they're just believing what they want to believe and not trying to force me to believe it too, I have no problem with them and their belief system. More power to 'em. I think that the issue that came up, at least for me, in Rick's recent sharing of the discussion he had with his Purusha friend is a classic example of this laissez- faire approach to conflicting belief systems. As I read what was posted, it seemed to me that Rick was NOT going out of his way to demonize his Purusha friend for believing what he believed. But the Purusha guy WAS doing that. His position was that Rick was WRONG. And he felt that it was his DUTY, as a friend, to try to "help" Rick come to his senses and come back to his belief in the "right" things. All I'm suggesting is that your quip above is pushing the envelope of the same phenomenon. WE may feel that these folks are perpetuating what the TMO has become, but is there anything we can do about it? Nothing. Nada. Nichevo. Rien. Bupkus. We could convince every Purusha guy in the world that we were "right" and the TMO would continue its lemming run undisturbed. The TM movement's direction is set by MMY, and nothing we can do or say is ever going to change it. I guess that all I'm suggesting here is: Why *bother* to try to change it? If what they believe makes them happy, let them believe it, as long as it doesn't cross the boundary into something illegal. If it does, report that illegality to the proper authorities and let them deal with it in the legal system. But I think that you know (and, like me, have probably seen it happen) that even if the legal system found some- thing dreadfully illegal about the TMO's activities, or about Marharishi's activies, there are people who would *refuse* to believe a word of it. Their trust in their existing beliefs is stronger than their trust in the legal system. So, again, why even *bother* to try to sway those beliefs? We can talk about the things we believe here, and they can talk about the things they believe in the groups they hang with. No harm, no foul, no need for either "side" to try to convince the other that it's "right." To do so just seems like an awful waste of time and energy to me.
