I'm reminded of the expression that it takes a thorn to remove a thorn. Yes, Maharishi's "We're Number One!" culture does cultivate the ego, but to the extent that it also cultivates enlightenment - liberation from the ego - by encouraging regular practice, then it's a case of a thorn removing a thorn.
I thought this was a good subject for discussion and a good, if brief, discussion. Thanks, all! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > This was just a rap that occurred to me while > > > walking my dogs this morning. But now it occurs > > > to me, after having posted it, that how people > > > reply to it will say a lot about how accurate > > > a rap it was. > > > > > > Who will reply attempting to refute it and turn > > > it into a formal debate? Who will relax and go > > > for a drink at the Mos Eisley? > > > > Looking for a nibble to your post? Drawing your > > saber? I thought you fell down drunk at Mos and > > weren't interested in a response. Oh alright, if > > you insist. En Garde! > > Two funny things about this. > > First, Barry sets up debating and drinking at a > bar as if they were mutually exclusive. But > bar debates have a long tradition and honorable > tradition; some of the very best debates take > place in bars. > > Second, he sets up his thesis in such a way that > if you disagree with it, you prove the thesis > correct; the only way to refute it is to agree > with it. Thus he's arranged things so that he > gets to be "right" either way. > > <snip> > > > > But it goes back even further. This > > > > contentiousness that we see in Maharishi > > > > goes back to the founder of the "holy > > > > tradition" he claimed to be part of. Shankara > > > > was like this. He felt compelled to travel > > > > the length and breadth of India and challenge > > > > any other spiritual teacher who had a following > > > > to engage him in formal debate. If you look up > > > > Shankara on the Web, you'll find that his > > > > "story" is told by devotees as a long series of > > > > all these debates, and how he kicked ass in > > > > every one of them. > > > > > > > > Shankara passed this mindset down to his > > > > tradition. And Maharishi picked it up from him. > > > > And we picked it up from Maharishi. And a lot > > > > of us are still wearing the same old mindset, > > > > and acting out the same samskara, even if we no > > > > longer consider ourselves part of the TM > > > > tradition. > > > > Your entitled to your opinion about the relationship > > between teacher and student. Here's mine: The purpose > > of Shankara's tradition of debate was to remove doubt > > about the devotee's practice. > > Not only that, but such debates in Shankara's > time were *themselves* a tradition; it wasn't > just Shankara's predilection. Attending a > philosophical debate between leading scholars was > one of the entertainments of the time, a kind of > intellectual spectator sport, like watching > politicians debate on a TV talk show. (Obviously > the quality has degenerated since Shankara's time. > Folks were a lot smarter back then.) > > <snip> > > > > Many people on this forum seem to seek, more > > > > than anything else, *battle*. They like dueling. > > > > They actively seek out and attempt to provoke a > > > > "formal debate," in which their ego can lay waste > > > > to the lesser ego of someone who dares to believe > > > > something different than they do. And so these > > > > debates occur. > > Barry needs to get out more. Debate is a feature > of many such forums; it isn't peculiar to FFL or > to those who have been involved in TM. Lots of > people enjoy debating just for the intellectual > exercise. It's a sport, but for the brain rather > than the body. > > <snip> > > > > Get over it. There is no Umpire. No matter > > > > how rational or brilliant or eloquent an > > > > argument you make for what your ego believes > > > > and how it's "right" and your opponent's ego > > > > is "wrong," neither God nor the Laws Of Nature > > > > are ever going to come running in with an > > > > official decision making your ego "right." > > It's only Barry who seems to care whether there's > an Umpire or not. The rest of us couldn't give a > flying freak. We're just having fun. > > It's always going to be a tiny little > > > > ego trying to preserve its existence by > > > > considering its current View "right" and > > > > trying to make other Views "wrong." > > News flash: It's human nature to want to be > "right." And Barry, of course, is no exception. > Where he's exceptional is in his extreme fear > of being *wrong*. That's why he doesn't enjoy > debating. > > > Projecting much? Do you believe no one should > > hold you to account, or have an opinion about > > what you say and therefore, you can say anything > > you want without consequences while you judge > > others and pretend you don't? Sounds like the > > demand of a spoiled child to me. > > A terrified spoiled child. I don't know who > spoiled him, but they did a really good job > of it. > > > > > We're all gettin' pretty old around here, and IMO this > > > > acting out of Maharishi's and Shankara's samskaras is > > > > gettin' even older. > > > > > > > > Wouldn't be neat to put your light sabers back in your pants > > > > and just drop the egos and their silly need to be "proven" > > > > "right?" Wouldn't it be a lot more fun to just all go over > > > > to the Mos Eisley Cantina and hoist a few? > > > > How much Wookiee brew does it take to believe > > you aren't pretending innocence about your own > > contentiousness but think it's fine to accuse > > others it? Will Judy drink you under the table > > on this one? Set `em up. > > raunchy's already done it. I've just poured a > little brew over the unconscious body. Up your > nose, raunchy! I'm buying this round. >
