--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > That's all Rick said about Maharishi in the article. All. > > No , the article, which was based on his kind of thinking and I > believe possible even instigated by him , or the reporter knew him > and thought it was time for a story like that. Which is fine by me. > I was talking about his friend whom the article insulted because as > far as I remember the article went on to say that Amma is a > philanthropist and Maharishi is a money grabber. Where did the > reporter get this thining?
Well, duh...could it possibly be that the reporter was a normal, thinking person? Given the two modus operandi of the two teachers, and no emotional attachment to either, who could NOT get that idea? > This is an insult based on small > thinking, poor logic, and unsubstantiated rumor. I disagree. I think that this is a conclusion that *any* thinking person would come to, given nothing more than the way the two teachers "do business" and what they charge for their services. I have no idea what you are referring to as "unsub- stantiated rumor." NO rumor, substantiated or not, would be necessary for your normal man-off-the-street to susect that Maharishi was a bit of a money-grubber. You could learn that much just from the articles that make it into the mainstream press. > As I pointed out in previous post Maharishi has spent 40 years in > the endeavor of education millions of people. Thousands, possibly > tens of thousands (at least that is Maharishi's goal) will attend > schools and universities created by Maharishi. (they are also fed > there). Education is the only way to help people...not handouts and > hugs. If it really happens, I shall be the first to applaud it. So far, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that it has happened on a large scale so far, or that it is likely to happen on a large scale in the future. It hasn't happened on a large scale while he was alive, and I don't necessarily believe that the people who are in charge of his money (the nephews, not the TMO) are going to make it happen once he's gone. I would LOVE to be proved wrong about this. I would LOVE to see every penny spent on education and teaching people to meditate. I would LOVE to see pigs fly. > So the article of which Rick is probably the partial inspirer of, > even if he may not know it (the reporter has probbaly been a reader > of FFL for a long time, and no doubt Rick has been in > correspondence with him/her or an associate of hers). What was that you were saying earlier about unsub- stantiated rumor? :-) > If someone creates a free education for people, (like in India and > other places), or even somewhat free, then when someone calls them > a money grabber, it is kind of absurd. And it is based on > irrationality and prejudice. No, it is based on numbers. How MANY kids were educated by the TMO millions, possibly billions? How MANY schools have actually been built? How MANY times has Maharishi been to any of these schools to see how well his great work is going? THESE are the kinds of questions reporters ask. And they should. I don't really know the numbers. The only contact I have with the TMO these days is this forum and a.m.t., neither of which I trust as authoritative. There might be thousands of such schools right now in India. But I've really only heard about one or two. Those one or two could have been paid for by the interest on the interest of the TMO millions. Where did the rest go? > If this is entirely the reporters own inspiration fair > enough....sorry Rick...but my only point Turquoise was that his > friend might be insulted if he calls his wife (someone beloved) a > money grabbing control freak, and his friend is obviously fond of > Maharishi as a guru beloved by him/her Well, I would call someone who reacts to their wife being called a whore by losing control and becoming angry some- one who's pretty attached and ungrounded, but that's just me. NONE of the language you use above was in the article. NONE of it. You PROJECTED it there, or the friend whose POV you're channeling projected it there. The actual article was as balanced a piece as I have EVER seen about a non-mainstream spiritual organization. > > The only other times he's quoted he's talking about Amma. > > What he said of a factual nature was the truth, and what > > he said in the last section quoted above was opinion, > > and was clearly labeled as such. By comparison, the two > > TMO representatives quoted were compelled to lie. > > > > Could you please point out to me in the above quotes > > exactly where Rick spoke ill of Maharishi? Can you steer > > me to the section where he suggested anything remotely > > like "your wife is a slut and a whore?" > > > > You're running Cultthink, release 1.0, dude. It's old > > software, hideously outdated, and the software didn't > > work for shit when it was new. You're seeing things > > that aren't there. >> > > No, you are unable to see the mechanisms that go towards this > article. The ones in your head? That's the only place I've seen evidence of them. Please explain. > It is your inability. > I am only talking about how his friend might feel. I don't tell my > friend who loves Jesus that Jesus was fraud and a fake, because it > probably won't help them. I agree that it probably won't help them. But it also won't have any affect on them at all unless they're ungrounded and attached enough to allow it to do so. Remember drawing a line on water? If they read this article and react the way Rick's "friend" did, I'm sorry, but that's drawing a line on stone. That person is rigid. > > As I said earlier about Rick's friend, I think that > > if you examine the article, and what was actually said, > > what you are pissed off about is that Rick committed > > the horrible sin of telling the truth, and in public. > > I am not pissed off. You lack depth of discernment, and assume I > am pissed off. Your prejudice shows by this, because I was only > talking about how I understand how his friend might feel. I understand how he might feel, too. Been there, thought like that. But I don't condone or support it any more. It seemed to me that you were, given the complete off-the-targetness of your analogies. I reacted -- probably overreacted -- to that. If what you were doing was "channeling" the POV of Rick's friend for instructive purposes and I mis- understood, you have my apologies. > I don't give > flying @%#$ if Rick published a paper on how Maharishi has > 100 Rolls Royces and 1000 dancing girls. I would. That wouldn't be true. What Rick said in this article was either all true, or was clearly labeled as his opinion. I don't see how anyone could have done better, and with more grace. > I really don't care. I was talking about > his friend's reaction, and how he might feel that way. Not the > way I feel, but your prejudice shows, by the fact you thought I am > the one pissed off about the article. I don't care about. It is > just an article. My apologies if what you were doing was putting yourself in the point of view of Rick's friend, and I didn't get that. I didn't get that feeling, but as many have pointed out, I am new here, and haven't developed a real sense of people's styles yet. I'm sorry if I reacted to what was said as if you really meant it and you didn't. Unc To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
