--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Anyone who is so brainwashed that she thinks > > > > > of critics as "enemies" deserves only my pity. > > > > > That's my version of behaving kindly. > > > > > > > > And if you're critical of the TMO, then you're the > > > > enemy of The Age of Enlightenment, Heaven on Earth, > > > > The Divine Plan, Sat Yuga, etc. > > > > > > You've gotta admit...it is a really simplistic and some- > > > what paranoid world view, one that is pretty shocking > > > when compared to other spiritual points of view on > > > this planet. > > > > But not at all unusual. > > Shouldn't the TM organization *be* unusual in this regard?
Should it be perfect? Or rather, should people who live and work within (or who have in the past) in the organization be perfect? Is the TMO better, worse, or about the same as other organizations of it's size and complexity? And all the True Believers, regardless of any personal failings, still comprise the professional and volunteer staff of the TMO, so I don't see it as having collapsed, unlike many who post here. > > If it represents, as it claims, the "highest knowledge," and > constitutes a revival of true wisdom on this planet, (espec- > ially when compared to all the other traditions the TMO has > labeled as lesser than it is and inferior), shouldn't the TMO > be the *exception* to this "rule" rather than a clear leader > in demonstrating and perpetuating it? I don't see it as a "clear leader" in this regard. The TMO is rather tolerant (sometimes TOO tolerant --see the muder on campus incident) of most kinds of behavior. > > I'm not trying to argue here, Lawson. I'm merely pointing > out that -- once again -- when presented with a criticism of > the TMO with which you seem to *agree*, your immediate > reaction is to try to defend the behavior in the *same* way > that rightwingers and arch-conservatives defend *their* > indefensible behavior when caught at it. A new revelation > about the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld lies and machinations > comes out, one that is inescapbably true, and their defense > is, "Well, the Democrats do it, too." Or, when confronted with > their own promotion of torture in Iraq, they say, "Well, look at > what Saddam did." Not at all. It's one thing to excuse behavior this way, and another to point out that organizations are composed of imperfect people. That was MY only point: that all organizations have people like this. One can hope that TM will ameliorate and reduce the obsession over time, but I can attest that OCD is a tough nut to crack, and in fact, as my OCD got better at one point, my "on the programness" suffered, which makes for an extreme vaciliation scenario, on-the-program-wise. > > It's really a sad "defense." It's a defense that has at its heart, > "We're no worse than the people we say we're better than." > Shouldn't the position be, if one's organization or tradition > really *is* better, to demonstrate that it *is* better than > its "competition?" It's not a defense. It's an observation. BTW, in the case of this woman with clear problems, what official standing does she have with the TMO? Are you going to say that anyone who embraces the lable of XYZ should automatically be considered the best possible example of people who accept XYZ as their label? In that case, the entire human race is best represented by Saddam and Hitler and so on. > > The Rama fellow I studied with for a long time had a good > guideline: "Listen to what people (or organizations) say, but > watch what they DO." The main reason I stopped studying > with him was that when I applied his own guideline to him, > his everyday actions did not synch up with his pretty words. > It was a classic case of cognitive dissonance. > > If an organization *says* that its teachings and its techniques > promote expansion of the mind and a greater ability to inter- > act gracefully with other human beings, and then that organ- > ization *acts* in a manner that suggests a rather paranoid, > cultlike mindset, and actively *promotes* that mindset to its > followers, then I suggest that it's another case of cognitive > dissonance. The place where the TMO promotes "rigidity" is in the "purity of the teaching" thing. The fact that many people aren't flexible enough to apply rigid standards in one instant and be tolerant in others is an interesting issue. However, its been MY observation that the TMO, in general, is quite tolerant of behavior outside the arena of "purity of the teaching." > > If the TM organization wants to promote Sat Yuga, it might > consider starting by acting sattvic. In my observation, the TM acts quite sattvic overall. Its those people who can't make a distinction between behavior directed towards "purity of the teaching" violations and behavior meant to control everyone else *in general* who fail to perceive this. 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/
