--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- 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. > > I was aware of a similar person. Perhaps it was the same one. When he quietly > dropped out, it gave more weight to it -- along with other data points here > and there. Not a Confirmational Bias (CB) thing (which is humorous if we are > talking about the same person) because I was inclined not to believe such > things. Back then, around 77, I was open to both sides, and I was surprised a > bit at my reaction, and that of a close friend who revealed the information, > that it did not seem to make a huge difference to me. To her it was a much > bigger deal. > > >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. > > Some long term, early india course teachers seemed to drop out around then. > Seemed odd at the time. Its only (idle) speculation, but knowledge of such > events may have been a factor. Others, it appears, who did know, stayed in > TMO or at least its outer trappings, for decades > > > > > 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. > > > Yes. That is why the "he said, she said" views appear so simplistic. Its > ignoring the perponderance of information. Some people would only believe if > there were video tapes. And even then they would yell "photoshop" (or the > video equivalent). For me its in the 98% probability range. Not certain, and > not something that matters much to me or affects my vies on things TMO and > MMY.
Exactly. Agreed. > > > > 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.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
