> > > 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. >>>
No, it invloves short term and localized thinking. You need to go beyond that. > > 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. >>> Yes, a man off the street can say anything. They are free to do so. Even if it half baked prejudice. > 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.>>> So that means he is not trying and putting all the money in a box to go in his grave? It is a stretch to get from "I haven't seen the long term results yet....to "Maharishi is a money grabber" It just shows your prejudice and everyone can see it. Its embarrassing. > > 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. And that is what you will see. > > > 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? :-) No, this has precedents. Rick himself said a while back that he had interest from a reporter to do something like this, and that the reporter got their idea for doing a story from FFL.....Rick's posts and others. > > 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. >>> Agreed. They didn't ask those questions. And they didn't go to India for a month to find out, or anything like investigative reporting. If they did, they would have been astounded by what Maharishi does. I say the leader of China is a scooby doo fan. I have never been to China, and don't even know his name. Is that good reporting.? > > I don't really know the numbers. The only contact I have > with the TMO these days is this forum and a.m.t.,>>> And that is why you have a prejudiced view. > > > 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.>>> Ridiculous, naive, and uneducated. Are you kidding !? You call this investigative reporting? > > 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.>>> I can't judge that. I would say if he loves Maharishi it is normal. And love should never be demeaned. > > > > 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.>>> They are not so far off the target since Rick is obsessed by the idea that Maharishi had sex with disciples. This is unproven nonsense slanderous gossip, and his views on the TMO are inevitably directed and biased by this prejudice. > > > 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.>>> Apology accepted. We all do it from time to time, but it is necessary to be rational about the words being used. off-world 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/
