P.S.: The additional irony of Barry complaining that any alternative view to that of the TM critics is by definition a "thought-stopper" and therefore Evil and Duplicitous and To Be Ignored is that the TM critics here are *by far* the most frequent users of thought-stoppers (Vaj being the champeen). The TMers are far more likely to suggest nuance and ambiguity and shades of gray; they typically attempt to inject *balance* into the discussion (not always, granted, just as not all criticism of TM necessarily involves thought-stoppers).
My posts on the Dalai Lama and on Meera Nanda were both attempts to inject a bit of balance into what otherwise would be unrelievedly positive and uncritical evaluations by their fans. The Dalai Lama may be a great guy generally speaking, but to claim that George Bush is "honest and straightforward" suggests at the very least that the DL has not been following the ins and outs of U.S. politics and foreign relations all that closely. Meera Nanda may have some excellent points to make about Hindutva and its promotion of Vedic Science, but it may be that not all her insights are slam- dunks or all her research 100 percent accurate. Etc., etc., etc. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > This is Barry's funniest post yet. And it will go > right over the heads of most here. > > His *entire post* is one sweeping thought-stopper. > > He has achieved 100 percent "self-reference." > > You are to dismiss immediately any point of view, > Barry is telling you, that appears to conflict in > any way with the views of the TM critics, because > such points of view are obviously intended as > thought-stoppers. > > Any evidence, for example, demonstrating that the > Dalai Lama does not have perfect judgment is > designed to make you stop having any thoughts that > there is any good whatsoever to be found in the > Dalai Lama. If he has any less than 100 percent > perfect judgment, you are supposed to think that > must mean he is All Bad. > > Any demonstration that anybody has a negative > opinion of Meera Nanda's work is designed to lead > you to believe that she is Completely Wrong About > Everything. > > When you encounter such scurrilous thought-stoppers, > therefore, you must Stop Thinking about them. You > cannot allow any negative thoughts to enter your > mind and pollute your positive views. And of > course you must think of those who attempt to > introduce such negative thoughts into your mind as > people who themselves Do Not Think and don't want > you to think either. > > There is no such thing as ambiguity or ambivalence > or nuance in Barry's World, so anyone who attempts > to suggest that all is not black or white is > obviously No Good At All. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Recently, following up like a mindless TM robot to > > a mention of the name of the Dalai Lama by someone > > she doesn't like, someone posted a quote from a > > Google Group. The quote indicated that the Dalai > > Lama had some positive things to say about former > > president George W. Bush. > > > > IMO, the person's intent in posting this was to > > interject a "thought stopper" into the conversation. > > The idea was that if the Dalai Lama said something > > good about someone we all know to be thoroughly bad, > > then the Dalai Lama couldn't possibly be good, either. > > > > This just days after doing exactly the same thing > > when the name of a scientist who wrote a book saying > > that in her opinion all the "quantum consciousness" > > nonsense was in fact nonsense came up. The same person > > posted what was clearly intended to be another "thought > > stopper" by pointing to a few anonymous "reviews" of > > the book on Amazon. Again, people with feeble minds > > were supposed to *stop thinking* positively about the > > author, and think negatively about her. > > > > Add to this a long history of this poster and other > > posters on this forum utilizing "thought stoppers" > > to demonize people they don't like. Call someone a > > "liar" and (in their minds) everyone is supposed to > > stop thinking of the person accused of lying as pos- > > sibly having any positive qualities and instead > > think of them as something less than human. Call > > someone a "predator" and again the readers are sup- > > posed to *stop thinking* and just write the accused > > person off. > > > > In this post what I'm suggesting is that those who > > use such "thought stoppers" are demonstrating, more > > than anything else, how quickly their own thought > > processes stop working. > > > > They lack breadth of vision and compassion. They > > cannot *conceive* of a person being George W. Bush > > and yet having positive qualities. To them, if Bush > > is "bad," he is ALL "bad;" there can be no possible > > positive qualities in the man. Those positive qual- > > ities are not *possible* because he's "bad," and > > if a person is "bad," he's ALL bad. That's what > > they would have you believe. Therefore, if someone > > like the Dalai Lama is able to meet Bush and find > > something in him to praise -- anything -- then *he* > > must be linked to the "bad" Bush and be "bad" > > himself. > > > > Same with calling someone a "liar." Science tells > > us that human beings tell on the average 25 lies > > a day. A self-honest person can look at themselves > > and realize that they tell lies, too, if only to > > themselves. Only an idiot would claim, "I never > > lie." But some idiots not only claim this, they > > attempt to use the epithet "Liar!" as a thought > > stopper. Again, the implication is that by calling > > someone a "liar," you can make people think of the > > person you are attempting to demonize as ALL liar. > > "If they're a liar," the rationale of the thought- > > stopper-hurler goes, "they are *complete* liars. > > They cannot possibly have any other qualities or > > attributes. *Stop thinking* of this person as > > human; only think of them as a 'liar.'" > > > > Same with the epithet "predator." It conjures up > > images of child molesters and worse. And it is > > *supposed* to. Hurling the term "predator" at some- > > one you don't like is designed to get people to > > *stop thinking* about that person as human. They > > are supposed to think of them the way YOU do, as > > one-dimensional, as ONLY a "predator." > > > > Same with invoking "Kali Yuga" as a catch-all > > excuse for why things suck. The idea is that one > > can throw that term out and people will stop think- > > ing that there is anything they can possibly *do* > > to *change* how things suck. "You *can't* really > > change it," goes the thought stopper rationale, > > "because it's Kali Yuga. Things *always* suck in > > Kali Yuga." > > > > I'm pointing this out because I think a lot of > > people on this forum FALL for "thought stoppers." > > The TM movement was not long on compassion. It > > never taught its followers that a person could be > > partly good, partly bad. The model invoked was > > always the clear-cut "It's only the Pandavas and > > the Kauravas, the rakshasas and the perfect saints" > > scenario we see in TM stories. Black and white, no > > middle ground. So if a person is characterized as > > black, they are ALL black. > > > > As a result IMO, many people who have come out of > > such an environment are easy prey for those who use > > thought stoppers as a tool of debate. And the people > > who *rely* on thought stoppers know this, and use > > the thought stoppers as often as they possibly can. > > They know that the audience they are talking to > > has been taught to *despise* "shades of gray" and > > the possibility of feeling compassion for someone > > who has been accused of being "bad." They know that > > many people coming out of a TM environment will > > automatically consider George W. Bush ALL bad > > simply because Maharishi once characterized him > > as bad. Therefore they can "springboard" off of > > that and suggest that because someone *else* they > > want to demonize, like the Dalai Lama, once said > > something positive about Bush, he might be ALL > > bad, too. > > > > I think that the use of thought stoppers like this > > is the sign of a lazy intellect. The person who > > uses them frequently is demonstrating that they > > are incapable of thinking *past* a thought stopper, > > and that *their* thought processes stop at the first > > convenient label. And they want you to be just like > > them. > > >
