--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > "The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking > > > to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression > > > when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be > > > characterized as love between men is so absurd and > > > hurtful to gay men everywhere." > > > > > > Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest > > > thing from your mind, right, Curtis? > > > > So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy > > of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. > > That's exactly the criticism I've been addressing, > Curtis. > > It would be hypocritical only if he and Guru Dev had > been sexually involved.
I don't believe that. It is still hypocritical considering... let's call it a more neutral "outside the box, male bonding." Maharishi was very clear that he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and contrived a scheme to make it happen. He was not looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class. You are drawing different conclusions than I am from the few facts we do know about the guy. > > "The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson > Maharishi somehow says a lot." > > But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite, > right? No, that does. It is meant to. As one example of the misery his teaching on this caused was a good friend of mine at the College of Natural Law in DC who was gay and very devoted to Maharishi's teaching. He was really tormented by this aspect of his teaching. It was a wake up call for me but as Edg pointed out, I was not strong enough to stand up against it and take the consequences. So calling him a homophobe is a much bigger criticism than calling him a hypocrite. That is just a bonus observation. > > <snip> > > > And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy? > > "The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson > Maharishi somehow says a lot." > > But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite, > right? That's the hypocrisy of yours I was referring > to. It makes a difference for what reason you object to his behavior. You are looking for any excuse to pull out your favorite "H" word I know, but I'm not the guy teaching people that homosexuals are violating natural law. I'm not being a hypocrite for pointing that out. Of course I am calling him out for his whole view. I am speculating about the circumstances of his own life. But I am not lessening him for being shitty to gays in the movement. He did that all on his own. In addition I believe it was hypocritical since he was in love with Guru Dev, define it how you wish. > > > Yes I was. He, with his "devotion" to Guru Dev, > > out of anyone should understand how men can love > > each other, and should stay off their case. > > This is a backpedal, Curtis. You wouldn't have > brought up Yogananda wanting to spend the night > with his guru if you weren't insinuating a sexual > relationship in MMY's case. Do you think I am taking a stand of certainty here? I said no one knows the truth. I have my opinion, you can have yours. It is not a backpedal it is an honest discussion of all the aspects of the topic. So yes, I believe there was towel shaping and sword fighting going on in Joitir Math. > > But to address the backpedal on its own terms: > > Homophobia isn't based on men loving each other; > that is honored and respected in virtually all > cultures. Devotion to one's guru is honored and > respected in guru-centered spiritual traditions. > > Homophobia is based on men having sex with each > other, which until recently has been reviled in > most cultures. It is practiced in many including the Mideast. "There's a boy across the river with a bottom like a peach, but alas I cannot swim" is a famous folk song in Afghanistan. It was a big part of Greek life. It had a place in American Indian societies as well as in India itself. Our own culture maintains prisons such that men can have sex with each other. It is a fact at many levels of society outside just gay culture. Read about the history of sailing ships. I believe it happens in ashrams too. > > It may be short-sighted for people not to be able > to extrapolate from men loving each other > nonsexually to men having loving sexual > relationships, but it's hardly hypocritical. For > many people, that extrapolation would be a huge > leap. And for some it isn't a big leap given the level of love as it was described by Maharishi himself. So for me I find it hypocritical. He could have been more understanding. > > Those who still revile homosexuality do so in > large part because they were taught that homosexual > relationships are *only* about sex and that sexual > preference is a free choice. Again, it's only very > recently that loving, committed same-sex > relationships and the likelihood that people are > born homosexual appeared on the radar. You are a fan of the classics right? Wanna rethink that statement? > > MMY was a child of his culture and his time where > his social views were concerned. To call him a > hypocrite (in your backpedaled version) because his > views on homosexuality didn't measure up to the most > modern perspectives is off the wall. MMY was supposed to be more than a "child of his culture" he was deified as "nature speaking English. The view I was expecting from him was one of more compassion than he showed. The bar wasn't that high. I have been accepting of homosexuals since I know some as friends and understood them starting in High School. Maharishi could have done better. I grew up with plenty of older people who weren't homophobic like that, my parent's included. > > One can loathe his *views* because they don't measure > up in this regard, but there's no need to loathe him > for holding them, unless one is looking for an excuse > to do so. Yeah, looking for an excuse...nice try. I didn't start the topic, I joined it. I shared my views some of which are disapproving of Maharishi's views. If you haven't noticed, its kinda what we do here. You chose to focus on ways to call me a hypocrite for criticizing him. Another day on FFL. >From another post: Judy: > Uh, no, doesn't make me crazy, sorry. What *annoys* > me is the lengths you and other TM critics will go > to in order to find some excuse, no matter how > ridiculous and far-fetched, to dump on him. Me: This sums up how I feel about your accusations of me being hypocritical in my criticism of him Judy. You are trying to nitpick a defense for the guy by attacking. Meanwhile you are only defending against the the least important part of the charge against him. By over focusing on the charge of hypocrisy you are missing the more important issues. And summing up my points as "dumping on him" is trivializing a criticism that is important for me. It expresses how I feel about him in detail as I think out loud about all aspects of his teaching from my current perspective. Discussing his teaching is kind of the point of the place. >
