I think the re-write started when the issue of "did he actually say he was a celibate monk" began. Once people started to parse on that, I'd say their feet fell out from under them, and they started down the slope. It's a biggie to have to process. Just defies any easy resolution.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > ...the leader sets a new date and everyone resets their count-down clocks! > > I am hearing a trend of divorcing Maharishi's claims for his practice from our evaluation of the value of his system in some posts. > Aren't we then re-writing the whole scriptural basis of this philosophy when we divorce the inner state and the effect of virtue on the ethics of a person? "By their fruits yee shall know them" and all? > > What we have is a classic case of the counterexample attempting to be explained away as a non-counter-example to the claim. We are changing the bullseye to fit where the arrow landed. > > The abstract idea of enlightenment divorced from making a person better in some recognizable way either through science or our own personal observation means that any flight of inner experience fancy qualifies as the "goal." The words are too vague to be meaningful for evaluation like hanging around people on acid. > > The connection between godliness or whatever you want to call it and ethical virtue is an indisputable cornerstone of Maharishi's teaching and I would say of most religious systems. I think the direction of this conversation is in the Charlie Manson direction of "If God is one, what is right or wrong?" > > Again this is counter to the whole premise of scientifically verified benefits of TM. You are making an appeal of not evaluating the broad claims of the system against the evidence. When was that a good policy? >
