--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > And who else would you hold responsible for the > > > general attitude that led to Levi Butler's death > > > at MUM. The way the story was told in the press > > > (documentation), the MUM Dean who was supposed to > > > be watching the person who had just attacked another > > > student left him on his own rather than "miss program." > > > From whom did this person *get* this completely > > > inappropriate sense of priorities other than from > > > Maharishi? From whom did he get his obvious sense > > > that nothing bad could happen if he just meditated > > > as usual? > > > > No, no, no. I don't buy into that line of thinking for a minute. > > I'm surprised at you. Yes, on that account the dean WAS culpably > > irresponsible. But nowhere whatsoever have I ever, ever, > > considered MMY taught - or as you would probably say > > *foistered* - an attitude of "meditate* and sod your > > responsibilities". > > We must agree to disagree about this. I have > been present in the room many times when Maharishi > told someone to ditch their responsibilities to > family, friends, work, and anything else so as not > to miss a meditation. He was even more explicit in > telling them not to care about "worldly responsi- > bilities" if they were preventing them from attend- > ing a course or otherwise doing what he wanted them > to do. And I know that there are any number of > others on this forum who will back me up on this. > > > I know what's coming next of course: "You see you're only a > > Siddha Richard and so you don't know the *real* teaching". > > I guess you're thinking the Dean did. > > Your comment *does* make me wonder if you ever spent > any time around Maharishi. I cannot believe that you > did if you honestly believe what you said above. Like > Judy and ed11 and Lawson and many others here, you > really *did* only get the "trickle down to the peons" > teachings. Live with it. > > > I object to Vaj's "MMY's got blood on his hands". > > It's pretty outrageous, but so was Maharishi. Again, > were you there when suicides on TM courses were > quickly covered up? I was. Who do you think ordered > the coverups? > > > I think that's about as serious an accusation as you > > can make. You respond by simply weakening the concept > > so far that it would apply to probably all of us: > > "Someone implicitly (not explicitly) said something that > > indirectly (not directly) resulted in someone not > > stopping someone else form harming someone - apparently > > (according to the press)". > > > > Again, I'm astonished you can't see Vaj's "MMY's got > > blood on his hands" as the vexatious, nasty, irresponsible, > > and perverse piece of work that it is. > > Oh, I see that. But what I *also* see is you > reacting to it emotionally, out of attachment > to Maharishi. Would you object if someone said > that about George W. Bush? Or about Dick Cheney? > How about Tony Blair? > > They've *all* got blood on their hands. Many > times over. What makes it OK for someone to use > such a phrase when referring to them, but not OK > when referring to Maharishi?
They sent troops to war. They have blood on their hands. Not only that, I expect they would agree. How could they not? > Is it because Maharishi was supposedly a spiritual > teacher, or someone "religious?" No - it's because of the tortuous stretch of the concept that you are trying to apply. It's really not that difficult. Try this test: Turq: "Tony Blair - if you send troops to war, you realise some will get killed" TB: "Yes, I'm not stupid" [RichardM - ?] Turq: "Then you know you will have blood on your hands?" TB: "I'm afraid so. It's a very difficult decision. But, y'know, I'm a serious kind of guy. I have an incoming mail server called pop.god.com. These are hard decisions" Then try: Turq: "MMY - if someone is guarding a dangerous person who may have just attacked someone, is that a good time to go away and meditate? Knowing that if you do that person may go away and attack someone else" MMY: ? Are you seriously saying he would say "Yes, whatever happens happens for good" or something. Sorry, I don't buy that. I suppose the point lies in another thread: "You have control over your actions, not over the fruits of your actions". You are trying to say that MMY has blood on his hands because of the unintended consequences of his actions. Have you got a good account of the unintended consequences of YOUR actions? Is blood on your hands? I think we should be told! > OK, how about > "Pope Pius XII has blood on his hands for not doing > more to stop the Holocaust?" How about (as was > implied here recently by ed11) "The Dalai Lama has > blood on his hands for not stopping the Chinese > invasion of Tibet?" > I *understand* that not "treating Maharishi with > respect" pushes your emotional buttons. Hmmm... This is the old faithful, isn't it. It's like a sort of chess move by some wily, old master. I have a very good friend who was the foreign editor of a Brit national daily (now retired). Over dinner once, the subject of MMY came up. I mentioned that I was a meditator and "follower" of MMY. he laughed and said "why that old rascal!". It seems he was familiar with that core part of the historical record revered by Vaj. Do you think my *emotional buttons* were pushed? Not a bit of it. Or perhaps they were pushed "unconsciously" and I didn't realise it? Do you think therapy could help me? What pushes my *emotional buttons* is when I sense that someone is being intellectually dishonest. i.e they are sufficiently intelligent to know the stupidity of what they are saying, but they say it anyway because it serves their emotional shortcomings, or because they have "an agenda". > But some > of us really DON'T have much respect for him. For > us, his faults outweigh the good he did, and we > were around him enough to see him do lots of actual > bad as well. We DON'T respect that. > > > And that's my rant. And if he'd said the same thing about > > the Dalai Lama I would hope my opinion of his "integrity" > > would be no higher. > > enlightened_dawn11 said essentially the same thing > about the Dalai Lama recently. And you didn't seem > to notice. If you did, you didn't say anything, > did you? Where was *your* integrity then? I would agree with you. I see no need to smear DL. Didn't I make that crystal clear? > Could it possibly be that you have no emotional > attachment to the Dalai Lama and you do to Maharishi, > or rather to your idea of him? > > I say "idea of him" because some of the things you > have said do not indicate that you ever spent much > time around him. Neither did many of the "defenders" > of his "good name" on this forum. ed11 and Judy have > never been in the same room with him, and know him > only from audio or video tapes or books. Nabby has > at least met the guy a couple of times. *He* might > be qualified to have an opinion about Maharishi's > actions, based on having been there when he acted. > But ed11? Judy? You? How much did you actually > *see* with your own eyes? > > Interestingly, look at some of the people on this > forum who *did* spend a lot of time around him, the > ones who did time in Purusha or on International > Staff or in other high-ranking positions in the > TM movement. Do you see *them* getting their panties > in a bunch over Vaj suggesting that Maharishi "had > blood on his hands?" My panties look just fine. I like to fire off both barrels when I see a deserving target. why not? Don't you? Why did God give you two barrels? One reason I follow this forum is because I appreciate there are people here with far more insight and experience of the TMO and the big deal than I have. But they don't have the last word for all that. Do you think that for every one of your up-close-and personal-disillusioned there aren't probably many more up-close-and personal-deeply-seriously-wowed? That point goes nowhere. > No, you don't. I suggest that the reason for this is > that these people aren't working from a fantasy of > the man developed from far, far away; they actually > worked with him up close and personal. And they don't > seem to be terribly offended by Vaj. The ones who > seem to be offended, in fact, are the people WHO > NEVER MET HIM, not even once. > > Is Vaj over the top in his attempts to "push your > buttons?" You betcha. > > But did he *create* those buttons? No. You did. > And, if you're like ed11 and Judy, from afar. >
