--- In [email protected], "at_man_and_brahman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip > > Was a bias of L.B.'s revealed in his > interpretation of what I said to mean > that I sided with hardcore protectionists > in Fairfield? > > Then, we all have biases, or at least > the "remains" thereof. &&&&&&&& The semantic loading in your choice of words in those posts indicated an emotional "charge" on your part. In my experience, this only comes from identification with a localized point of view. In a recent post, you acknowledged that you used to feel that way (hardcore protectionist) when involved locally and that some trace of that may have turned up in your opinions on the subject (the "remains" thereof). If you intend to maintain that you have been neutral in your positions on this topic, you have a difficult case to make, based on what you have actually left in the archives. I have attachments and aversions of my own, based on my 35 years inside/outside the movement, so I have some appreciation that these can persist long beyond our conscious perception of them. In another recent post, you acknowledged that you have been away from FF for twenty years. I am only saying, as one who has been here during those twenty years, that the only explanation I can find for your contentiousness on the issue of "guru turf wars" is that you don't realize the extent to which you are still speaking for the TMO. The rest of society just doesn't see the issue the way you have presented it. This is not how gurus relate to each other, for the most part, in India, for example. It is not what they prescribe for their disciples/devotees. It is only found in the presence of "the one true path" or "the greatest guru of all the ages". My thinking about this forum is that it is a colloquium, an opportunity for peers to converse as equals whether they agree on all points or not. When someone takes the position that some of the members are "squatters", or that their gurus are not as legitimate as someone else's, the quality of discourse here inevitably suffers. If unavoidable differences of opinion exist regarding gurus and/or teachings, then this is a matter for legitimate discussion. Let the debate be on the merits of the evidence or the reasoning, not on the level of unsupported assertions. Many people have questioned the "agenda" of FairfieldLife; specifically, some have claimed that it is intentionally anti-TM. I have not seen this, regardless of the fact that many who post here have "issues" with the movement and a few plainly despise it. It seems to me, rather, that what some people find objectionable is that very lack of affiliation, based on their feeling that the TMO is the only legitimate organization for all of us, regardless of how we may feel about that. The fact that your posts questioned the legitimacy of the presence of "others" in Fairfield suggested to me that you were "in that camp". Since it is pretty rare to find someone NOT in that camp who would see any problem with spiritual diversity, I am still at a loss to see it otherwise. Your logic in responding�"I have no problem with supply and demand as long as a certain segment of the demand side is ignored or prohibited"�really doesn't help your assertion that you are free of your old TM biases, either. That's the basis of my taking you to task for your comments about Amma and others. I look forward to your response, should you feel inclined. L B S To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
