Judy points out similarities between Kirkpatrick's rant to the Fairfield Ledger and Kai's recent rant here about Jeezus. I noticed another similarity buried in his dissertation:
> When someone claims total knowledge as Maharishi has, it gives > us a great epistemological advantage. How can anyone claim total > knowledge unless he either has it or is a fake? Can you think of > anything in between? If you consider saints, none of less than > the highest knowledge would claim to have it. (That, apparently > is the unexamined conclusion about Maharishi of many who claim > to respect him.) that leaves non-saints. But any non-saint who > claimed to have the highest knowledge would be a fake and evil. Ok, here's the start of it. The only two possibilities offered are saint (with "total knowledge") or non-saint (without). This is the start of what this gentleman considers an "epistemological advantage." > Hence, we have two choices. Maharishi is either everything he > says he is or he is a fake and evil. Those who reject Maharishi > as fake and evil at least show internal consistency. Those who > claim respect for Maharishi but seriously pursue other gurus do > not. One cannot respect someone who claims total knowledge unless > one believes he has it. Therefore, if one respects Maharishi one > must believe everything he says. This last statement is spurious enough just on its own, but look at the *further* implication and assumption in this amazing rant. It doesn't allow that there could possibly be TWO saints, EACH with "total knowledge." This possibility is neither examined or presumed to be exist. Clearly, in this person's mind, there can only be ONE saint with "total knowledge." Therefore, one must believe everything HE says. Anyone else suggesting that they also have "total knowledge" is, almost by definition, a liar or a fake. Think about what a belief like this structures on the level of the believer's own consciousness. If he really does believe that there can only be ONE person with "total knowledge," and that position is already held by Maharishi, HOW WILL HE EVER REALIZE HIS OWN ENLIGHTENMENT? The guy has created a belief system for himself that, in my estimation, is similar to dualistic Christian beliefs. In that world view, one can NEVER *become* what Christ was; one can only be his follower, forever. The belief structures are not in place for becoming like Christ or living one's life on the level that Christ led his. In this particular True Believer rant, Kirkpatrick seems to be suggesting a similar belief system among the "real" TMers. He seems to assume that no one can ever be what Maharishi is (to him), possessed of "total knowledge." After all, if visiting saints can't possibly have "total knowledge" because Maharishi's got a monopoly on it, how can Maharishi's own students ever attain "total knowledge?" The world view presented here is of the eternal follower, who cannot conceive of ever being an equal to that which he is following, only an obedient subordinate forever. It's sorta like believing that self discovery is like the line from Highlander, "There can only be one." Self-defeating self-discovery. Weird. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
