--- In [email protected], "gable52556" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If you are not biased for Amma (supporter) and against TMO > > (denouncer) can you please explain the following highly > prejudiced > > and loaded statement: > > ""Take a look, for example, at how Amma's admirers describe > her. > > Without exception, they paint a picture of a humble, > down-to-earth > > woman whose charitable projects make an immediate > difference for > > people in need -- a far cry from the TM movement with its > trappings > > of monarchy and its seemingly endless string of grandiose > schemes."" >
> That statement summarizes the background for my argument > that Amma's popularity in the Fairfield community may stem > directly from some of the TM movement's own problems. > Amma is popular among a handful of people in Fairfield, almost all of whom no longer practice TM, like the moderator of this group, Rick Archer, whose posts create the impression of a level of interest in Amma that does not even remotely match the number of people practicing TM in Fairfield (maybe a couple dozen at the outside compared with about 1600-2000 practicing TM). The idea that making huggy-face has some significance indicates the level of intelligence among these TM drop-outs -- it's pathetic (although I do agree that TM management is making a huge mistake by not just ignoring any interest people might take in Amma or any other person). I do like that Amma provides soup kitchens and other help to the indigent, but there are many such organizations which have operated for years and years without significantly transforming the miserable character of human life in this violently unhappy world: life is about more than helping the materially poor. As Jesus said when people complained about the lady who put an expensive oil on Him, "the poor you have always with you" -- the superior charity is educating people in how to live the fullness of life, which is what MMY has done for the last 50 years. It's not the declared intention of the TMO to be a soup kitchen/hugging booth, but to be offer an easy and universal technique for unfolding total awareness in human consciousness, so that life is not the unhappy struggle that it is now, and if MMY wants to allow, as Jesus did, the anointing of a few kings, it's not an indication of the worth or lack of worth of what the TMO has to offer. Whether or not one agrees with this analysis, there is no competition between Amma and MMY (which of course is why it's so stupid for MUM managers to try to crack down on any interest in Amma and others). > > > One person said the column should have included > interviews > > > with people other than university officials who are happy with > the > > > TM movement. I'd like to draw an analogy here. When you > read > > > a story about something the president has done, typically the > > > reporter will quote the president, a few of his aides, and a > few > > > critics from the Democratic side of the aisle. That way, the > > > reporter tells both sides of the story. Should every reporter > who > > > writes a story about the president seek out a half-dozen > satisfied > > > Republicans to talk about what a great job they think he's > doing?>> > > > > That is a terrible analogy and has no relationship. > > Can you explain why it's a terrible analogy? > It's a wrong analogy because on the one hand, you are claiming that there is universal admiration for Amma -- but surely this is not true (although Amma's constituency may be almost completely composed of unthinking people who are unable to give anything but knee-jerk evaluations of what she does). I regard her as a silly woman (not that this detracts from the humanitarian aid she gives in her soup kitchens and other projects), who once said of Maharishi "I created him"(Rick Archer can verify this quote), more grandiose and stupid a statement than anything you will ever hear from TM's wannabe kings. You regard as balanced the presentation of opinions from MUM administrators, but this is not balanced because it does not represent the thinking of the intelligent segment of the TM community, which has been eradicated from management positions in the TMO. I do not regard you as prejudiced, but the portrait of the TM community that you are presenting in the editorial is not inclusive of all thinking in the community -- although admittedly it's hard for a newspaper to present all nuances of any situation. > > The fact is you are prejudiced against the TMO, and support > Amma > > organization, and did not want to give the opinions of people > who > > are happy with TM who live there. > > "The fact is that White House reporters are prejudiced against > President Bush, support the Democrats, and do not want to give > the opinions of people who are happy with the president." > > For the record, I'm not a partisan for the TM movement, the > Amma group, or any other group in town. I'm pretty much an > outside observer. I'm not from Fairfield, and when I moved here > three years ago, I knew next to nothing about the university or the > movement. All the opinions I expressed in the column were > formed as a result of my observations here, not as a result of any > pre-existing prejudice. 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/
