l_b_shriver wrote: > > Now we see [our TM frame of reference] in this > phenomenon called Hindu fundamentalism, also > represented by the hindutva movement, and the > extent of "shared values" there is really quite striking. ... > Do you see the point I am rambling towards?
Absolutely, L B. Once again I see that my TM world was not the unique place I thought it to be. More to the point, I see that the ideology of the TM world is not limited to its inconsequential little sphere, but lives in Indian politics. It's scary, no question. Nanda says Hindutva god-men want to permit that science which leads to gadgets, but suppress research that might undermine the caste system. Against such cynicism, I can understand why Nanda's so sarcastic. My complaint with Nanda's essay is more the carping of an editor than the counter- arguments of an informed debator. I think she makes great points, but I had to read them repeatedly to understand them. I'd like her to dumb it down to my level, frankly, and illustrate her objections instead of dismiss the other side's values so offhandedly. (She undoubtedly wrote the essay for a more informed audience than I represent.) Another reason for my quarrel against Nanda has to do with my style of discussing policy. I'm not the warrior type (as I'm sure you've noticed). I work in a field where people bounce ideas off one another and revise their thinking on the fly. Warrior-like debates only piss off people who have power to fire me (and have). As a result of my collaborative perspective, I don't see what good it does for Nanda to go on the attack and ignore the real needs of the people she's debating: 1) They respect subjective means of gaining knowledge. She merely dismisses such respect, instead of pointing out its weaknesses. 2) They yearn for spiritual import. Her advocacy for secularism doesn't promise to fulfill that yearning. 3) They feel attacked because they *are* under attack. And people under attack tend to fight harder in their defense. I guess I object to her strategy, then. I'm critiquing her as I'd critique a copywriter. Again, my little wordview dominates all. Still, looking at this as a sales job, if TMers want to inject meditation into American culture or Hindutvans want to integrate Vedic practices with modern education, it seems they could achieve more with a genuinely open mind and respect for the goals of the other side. Don't most of us here think TM would have a place in society had it continued to be promoted objectively, with ever more good science behind it? I sound like a nanny. I think it's time to stop writing. - Patrick Gillam 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/
