Richard, I am NOT going to reply the way Judy would and try to vilify you for expressing your opinion. Instead, I am going to "piggyback" on your expressed opinion and offer mine.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Basically, the way I see it, all these TBs > > > are melting down for two reasons. The first > > > is because we're talking about sex as if it > > > were normal to have sex. Many of these people > > > are so uptight that they don't believe that. > > > But the second reason is that we are talking > > > about Maharishi the way we would talk about > > > any other man on the planet, as if he weren't > > > in any way "special." We're cutting him no > > > special breaks for being "holy." > > > > > > AND THAT MAKES THEM CRAZY. > > > > 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. Goodness > > knows he had plenty of very human faults; there's > > really no need to make any more up except as a way > > of venting one's spleen yet again. > > > > The fault you're making up here isn't homosexuality; > > that wouldn't be a fault. What you're doing is making > > up his purported homosexuality in order to make up the > > fault of hypocrisy, given his homophobic views. Those > > views themselves were bad enough. > > Quite so Judy. > > Barry's "hypothesis" is that the heat generated in this topic is > caused by the view that MMY was not "just a man". You're > demonstrating the falsity of that I'd say. I would say instead that the "heat" WITH WHICH she responds and the WAY she responds rather confirms my theory. The bottom line of my thesis (which I will address in some length below, where approp- riate), is that you and Judy seem to see nothing either questionable or wrong with getting your buttons pushed and "retaliating." My thesis is that such "retaliation," and the seemingly compulsive need to indulge in it, reveals a great deal more about the "retaliator" than it does the person being "retaliated" against. > I would say too that the charge of hypocrisy is rather glib > (as is the whole topic IMO). I should point out, just for the record, that I have not made that "charge" in any of the posts in these threads. That's Curtis' schtick, not mine. I have been merely looking at the phenomenon of guru-bhakti from a different angle, without trying to "color" it in the ways that spiritual traditions color it. I think that to do so is instructive and valuable. YMMV. I am NOT, in any of these intellectual explor- ations, trying to suggest that my alternative view of guru-bhakti is the ONLY way to see the phenomenon, or the "right" way to see the phenomenon, merely a different way. I present it only as a different way of looking at the phenomenon. I have done so *consistently* in my contributions to the thread. And yet many here have responded by "getting their buttons pushed" and feeling a need to "retaliate." My contention is that these people are "idea- phobic" in the exact same way that some men are homophobic. Their first reaction when they hear a way of looking at the phenomenon of guru-bhakti that disagrees with the way they see it is to 1) get their emotional buttons pushed, and 2) "retaliate." I'm sorry, but I'm Buddhist enough to believe that anyone who reacts to a mere idea by not only allowing that idea to push their emotional buttons but allowing the idea to push them so strongly that they feel the need to "retaliate" is pretty lost in Maya. > It is NOT in itself hypocritical to > have homosexual "tendencies" and also to express the view that > homosexuality is a "sin". I would agree with this. I consider the current Pope a closet homosexual, or at the very least a man with *strong* homosexual tendencies him- self. However, his belief system (and, from stories we hear about him, his level of fanaticism) is probably so strong that he would never ACT on those tendencies himself. Therefore, if he were to use his office to condemn homosexuality as a sin, I would not see that as inherently hypocritical. However, if that same Pope had, say, an emotional connection with a male saint, one that periodically reduced him to blubbering about him or becoming so emotionally out of control when talking about him that the *intensity* of his relationship with this male saint and its possible deeper nature became apparent, and *then* decried similar emotional behavior between two "men on the street," I might consider that a little hypocritical. My contention is that men in cloistered guru- bhakti traditions often act in ways that would be considered in *any other environment* gayer than Liberace. They *weep* for the gurus they adore; they compose syrupy songs and poems about them; they treat them (and even refer to them) as their "masters." So what do you think is the *difference* that makes the expression of such emotional over-the-topness mere gay behavior when practiced by two "men on the street," but that somehow changes this SAME emotional over-the-topness into something else, something "loftier" or more "spiritual" when done in an ashram or a monastery or the Vatican? I'm just curious. Really. I don't see any difference. Then again, I'm Tantric. I think that two gay men expressing their deep and spiritual love for each other are IN NO WAY lesser or less spiritual than a student expressing bhaktied-out love for his guru or teacher. I see both as exactly the same phenomenon, colored by different ways of inter- preting the phenomenon depending on context. > It might be hypocrisy though to express > that view and actually indulge those tendencies (though from > a Christian view of "sin", it may not be as simple as that). > > You say "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". I think > you make a valid point. But she makes the point BASED ON A FALSE ASSUMPTION. That is, that someone expressing an idea about Maharishi that is contrary to the TMO's dogma about him or her view of him is de facto "dumping on him." That is FUNDAMENTALISM. The overreaction to it, in the form of getting your buttons pushed by the idea and feeling the need to "retaliate," is just that, an overreaction. The *perception* that someone who expresses an idea that you don't like about Maharishi is "dumping on him" is FALLACIOUS. It assumes that the way YOU like to see Maharishi is somehow the "truth," or the "correct" way of seeing him. There is no "correct" way of seeing him. My "sin" in these threads has been only to see him a different way than the TMO would like me to see him. That is NOT the same thing as "dumping on him." > Is the topic an exercise in curiosity? In friendly discussion? > An attempt to get at the truth of something? Humour? Or is it > purely to "push buttons"? > > Well that's a judgement call - who knows *The Truth* (as Barry > might say). We have our opinion that's all. That's right. > If we intuit the latter - that it is just provocation with > perhaps a lack of "sincerity" - then annoyance is absolutely > "appropriate". Here is where we disagree, and disagree strongly. This is where you start to build up to your view that "retaliation" is somehow JUSTIFIED when you or someone else gets their emotional buttons pushed as the result of hearing an idea that they don't like. You state above that such "annoyance" and (below) feeling a need to "retaliate" is "absolutely appropriate." I disagree. I think that it's an indication of intellectual and emotional rigidity, and a kind of spiritual fascism that compels one to lash out at the people who hold ideas you don't like. > It's as if someone were to walk naked into a posh golf club dinner. > "Oh my, see how these middle class, butt-clenched, up-tight folks > REACT to my freedom of expression. They are so sexually repressed > that they can't hack it. Ha! Ha!" > > Well, no. That's just juvenile. The negative reaction is to the > INTENT to provoke. To the *perceived* intent to provoke. > To the hostility behind the action... To the *perceived* hostility behind the action. There may have been none. What you are accepting as a given and "appropriate" is the "negative reaction." You are trying to JUSTIFY the fact that you or Judy got your emotional buttons pushed and *excuse* it. I'm sorry, but I call that making excuses. > ...not to the > action itself. (They may be middle class, butt-clenched, up-tight > folks notwithstanding). > > "Pushing buttons"? To my mind that's just bad manners. Why not > retaliate? HERE is where we disagree the most strongly. You are justifying "retaliation" because YOU (or Judy) got your buttons pushed. THAT is juvenile. THAT is what starts wars. You are attempting to justify emotional weakness and lack of control. > But it is, as I say, something you "judge" - that is to say the > intention behind the action. I don't judge the same as you on > a lot of Barry's posts I suppose. I am thankful for that. Then again, I don't think it's POSSIBLE for anyone to judge my posts as consistently negatively as Judy does. :-) > So, let's see, how do I finish off? "Just my opinion of course". And, as such, I cannot argue with it. You were not presenting your opinion as "truth," merely opinion, a set of ideas. I agree with some of those ideas. I have, in this post, expressed my concerns about other of those ideas, primarily your contention that feeling the need to "retaliate" because your own (or Judy's own) emotional buttons got pushed is "acceptable" or "appropriate." I think that's an excuse for bad behavior that is far less appropriate -- especially in a spiritual context -- than your example of the guy walking into the golf club naked. He's only swinging his dick. Those who justify "retaliating" because they got their buttons pushed are swinging a club.
