--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > Funny that the anti-Maharishi, anti-TMO, anti-"enlightenmentudeness" > > clique here continuously claims that those who make positive claims about > > Maharishi, the TMO and enlightenment are doing so to garner attention and > > feel special and elevated above others. The same could easily be said about > > those claiming to have had sex with Maharishi. After all, what would be > > more special than that? "Look at me, I boinked Maharishi...". Yeah, look at > > you, center stage... > > That might have worked better when she was actually in the movement. But she > took decades to process the experience it all and her account doesn't come > off that way. It is hard to discuss the book if you haven't read it. But > talking about it this way without reading it does reveal some stuff about > your perspective. > > The problem with the enlightenment claim is that it IS a claim of intrinsic > superiority on whatever you are knowing. This is just a specific experience > and only applies to it. And it was a special relationship she had with > Maharishi with or without the undercover activities. But that doesn't give > her the right to tell me she has discovered the purpose of life itself. And > thankfully she hasn't tried. > > > > > There is also a propensity among this anti-everything-Maharishi crowd to > > question any experience had in the presence of Maharishi. Why not seriously > > question these claims of sex? After all, this could be some kind of fantasy > > fulfillment for the women involved, after rounding for years and becoming > > progressively more and more unstable (as we are always told by the TM > > detractors here regarding the results of TM and TMSP). It sounds like > > confirmation bias to me.
You need to read the book if you want to talk about it. A few people knew of this going on back in the 70's and everyone, everyone kept it quiet. No one wanted it to come out even if true. One, a very smart and devoted person I know, spent about 2 years years and their own money investigating the sex rumors because they had to know before they could go on giving their LIVES to MMY and his organization. Judith refused to discuss it with back then, but there were other women to talk to. Generally they did not want to talk about the sex, altho they were clear it had happened. But when he found out the information and what he thought to be the truth, he quietly left TM, very quietly. Would not say a word, just left. I believe several other people left, quietly, for similar reasons. I heard of this back in the mid-70's and decided tWhat better way to imagine that your guru finds you special. And so I had to be careful about believing the rumors. But there is too much smoke around this issue for there not to be some sort of fire. Too many different accounts. I have no doubt it occurred, none. And I still do TM, and think MMY was pretty great in many ways. He made some mistakes. > > No, it reveals yours if you haven't read the book. > > > > > > Regardless of our opinions, there is zero evidence of Maharishi having had > > sex with anyone. Lots of hearsay, accusations, rumors and beliefs- an > > airtight case within airtight minds- however the only things missing are > > *facts* and *evidence*. > > So if a person witnesses something or is a participant, their description of > it is not credible once it leaves their lips? We are only confident about > things that happen to us but shouldn't be fooled by book learning accounts of > history? That sounds a bit limited to me. > > > > > > Seems that going after this sacred cow of MMY having sex isn't in the best > > interests of those with an agenda against Maharishi, doesn't support their > > story, their version of reality that they cling to so dearly. > > > And agenda against Maharishi. Hate to break it to ya Jim but the guy is > totally dead. We are just discussion different views of history here. And > by not reading the book I'm pretty sure it isn't us who are trying to cling > to some version of reality. Your attempts to discredit the book ahead of > time is very revealing about your own bias. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > [Rick wrote:] > > > > > > There were numerous witnesses, in the person of > > > > > > multiple women. Each had their own "events". > > > > > > Only one has had the guts to write a book. > > > > > > > > > > Well, so you now have several people claiming that > > > > > several different events happened, apparently > > > > > always in private. Still not anything more than > > > > > he-said, she-said. > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > But your attempts to make it seem as if you can > > > > write it off without reading it because of he said > > > > she said is nonsense. You just don't want to read > > > > it. Fair enough. Your choice. But assessing > > > > credibility ahead of time just reveals how our minds > > > > protect cherished beliefs from counter evidence. > > > > You are not upholding some principle of not taking > > > > he said she said stories seriously. > > > > > > Look, I'm completely convinced the story is true. > > > But I'm also in total agreement with what Lawson > > > is saying. You're overinterpreting the point he's > > > making and attributing it to a belief on his part > > > that the account is false, but you aren't doing > > > that on the basis of anything he's actually > > > *said*. > > > > > > (Actually I don't agree with what he says about > > > "preponderance of evidence" in a civil case. That > > > standard is looser than he thinks. But there's a > > > distinction between "de jure" (as a matter of law) > > > and "de facto" (as a matter of fact). It's > > > entirely possible for a person to be a child > > > molester, to use your example, *de jure* but not > > > *de facto*. Or vice-versa.) > > > > > >
