Curtis, I am making the point that AT LEAST no one here on FFL came anywhere near any direct evidence of what is being alleged, book or not. I have an opinion on all of this, though I didn't want to lead with it, because that is all it is, just like everyone else's, an opinion (damn I sound like the turq dude, huh?...). However I am surprised at what others are assuming my opinion is. Well you know what they say about assumptions...:-)
--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "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. > > 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 [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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.) > > > > > >
