--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > <snip> > > I find Vaj pretty consistently focused on his > > criticism of the teaching itself. He is blunt > > in his POV that doesn't put Maharishi in a > > flattering light. > > Note that I said "or even disagreeing > *respectfully* with" our beliefs (i.e, what > MMY taught). Vaj's criticisms aren't just blunt, > they're deliberately disrespectful (not *all* > the time, but a good percentage of it).
Since goofing on some of the more absurd aspects of Maharishi's life is something I am guilty of myself this interests me. The thing is I do feel a mixture of contempt and affection for Maharishi personally. So I can be disrespectful too. I don't see any reason why respect should be expected from someone who has rejected his teaching as thoroughly as Vaj and I have. The thing is there is no other place to express such feelings if not here. I don't know in Vaj's case, but for me it is more an expression of affinity with like minded people than a slap in the face to people who are still believers. But especially here, with Nabby as the exception, I wouldn't expect such vehement defense from people who didn't have any type of personal relationship with the guy. If I was at a sidha gathering I would not express the perspective I do here. I prefer rapport to being a dick to people. But here seems to be the right place to let it all hang out without too many filters. The balance is still a work in progress for me. > > This is taken as a personal > > attack by some posters who profess that > > Maharishi was not the focus of their practice. > > Why, exactly, should one expect that TMers > would refrain from defending MMY against what > they consider unfair criticism unless he was > the "focus of their practice"? OK that makes sense. If you consider some point unfair and go after the point that seems right. But if the person attacks the person for saying it, that seems over the line. > > I know you can come up with exceptions when > > he has been personally mean. But it is my > > impression that it is in response to some > > very vicious personal attacks, particularly > > by ED. > > Oh, sheesh, Curtis, it's been going on for a > *long* time, since well before ed11 joined us. > > And his meanness often comes in response to > respectful, or at least not overtly hostile, > disagreement. Lawson, for instance, is pretty > restrained in his disagreements with Vaj, but > Vaj typically responds by calling Lawson's > integrity in question or saying, for instance, > that whatever Lawson said is what he'd expect > to hear from a brainwashed TB. In this regard Lawson gives the same rough and tumble dismissals right back. He has never seemed like a guy who values rapport here. That said his contributions have been really interesting the last few months and I hope it corresponds to happiness in his personal life. They seem to be different from when I first met him here. It is a fine line for all of us to disagree vehemently and keep enough rapport for there to be meaningful communication. I question myself on this a lot. Whenever I want to write a flippant and often disrespectful post on Maharishi or Guru Dev I am aware that for some people it seem inappropriate or even mean to believers. But for some who are in similar shoes to mine, I know it is a bit liberating to express such previously forbidden feelings. There is a delight in the absurdity of some of my previous beliefs that is really directed to my past self, not the present people here. I am appreciative of your challenges to what I write about him. That always adds some balance and gives me something to think about. My thoughts and feelings about Maharishi are never one dimensional although they might appear so in a specific post. >
