--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > You have surrounded yourself with enough straw men, to > make an entire army of scarecrows. All I can say, is, > "CAW! CAW! CAW!".:-)
Ditto that. Barry really doesn't like having to deal with context or nuance. If you say something *once*, it's True for all time; you are not allowed to change your mind or adapt what you say to different circumstances. Unless you're Barry, of course, who is entirely free to contradict himself at any time. As I said not long ago, the first of Barry's Rules is that they apply only to other people, never to Barry himself. ;-) > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > I think the context of the response is different. The > > > questioner was interested in the householder vs recluse > > > issue, while in a question about marriage, MMY was > > > being asked for personal advice, which he generally > > > didn't like giving, from what I could tell. > > > > Ah, thank you, Lawson. Another clue in the eternal > > struggle to understand the mind of the True Believer. > > > > For all their talk of "truth," TMers aren't really > > *seeking* it. They're just seeking "easy answers" > > that put their minds to sleep while they nod and > > say, "Yup...that sure sounds right, Maharishi. > > Thanks for clarifying that for us...in this context." > > > > Now I understand why TB nitpickers get so batshit > > crazy when they feel that someone has taken something > > they said "out of context." It's like "How DARE you > > suggest that me acting like a harpy and hurling > > insults at someone is the SAME as them hurling insults > > at me. It ISN'T. Not, not, not, not not! You *have* > > to consider the CONTEXT. This other person was sug- > > gesting that my statement wasn't RIGHT, and not the > > very definition of 'truth,' and not a *fact* that > > everyone should hear and *have* to believe. So they're > > WRONG and I'm RIGHT. THAT is the all-important *context* > > in which this has to be seen. My statement is correct > > and *must* be seen as the authoritarian thought-stopper > > it was, whereas the other person's statement was wrong, > > and thus *deserved* my insults." :-) > > > > I'm just having fun with you being comfortable with > > Maharishi having declared himself *both* a householder > > *and* a monk, Lawson. It's a perfect example of the > > bipolar, immune-to-cognitive-dissonance reasoning of > > the True Believer. "Of *course* Maharishi was *both* > > a householder and a monk...it all depends on the > > *context*, which is a synonym for 'what *I* wanted > > to believe' in each situation." :-) > > > > Similarly you are probably comfortable with other > > examples of the creative uses of 'context' as a > > thought-stopper. "Of *course* the same TMSP program > > that claims it causes 'invincibility' is so fragile > > that it might be threatened by the presence in the > > domes of a few people who have 'seen other teachers.'" > > "Of *course* Maharishi was justified in denouncing > > siddhis as literally 'the worst practice you could > > ever consider for your spiritual development' in 1968 > > but then turn around and sell them for thousands of > > dollars a pop a decade later." "Of *course* we can > > still refer to practicing them as 'flying' when no > > one has ever flown." It's all about CONTEXT. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > MMY was asked (I've seen the video) what his lifestyle was, and he > > > > > > looked very surprised as he slowly said that he was a householder. > > > > > > > > bug I also heard him say, when asked questions about marriage, that he > > > > was not a householder and therefore could not comment. I heard him say > > > > he was a monk. > > > > > > > > > > That's interesting, you don't happen to remember where "in the sea of > > > > > tapes" this might be ? > > > > > It certainly gives meaning. A householder has responsibilities, > > > > > unlike a monk who is free. And since Maharishi has resposebility not > > > > > only for his own students, but according to Muktananda "the whole > > > > > world consciousness" the word "householder" in this case certainly > > > > > makes sense.
