Sigh.. Context 1: MMY was asked a serious question from his perspective and gave a serious, albeit, a very surprising answer (to him, it appeared to me).
Context 2: MMY was asked a question about personal conduct that he didn't want to answer and gave a copout answer about how such things weren't his concern because he never married (he's a monk, y'know) You can read into my interpretation of events whatever you like, and obviously you do. L --- 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. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon <mdixon.6569@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to admit, he did run the TMO like a business, not sure what > > > > > > business model that was.LOL! Buddha wasn't a Brahmin either, just > > > > > > another Kshatriya, Jesus, a carpenter, not a Levite. I think once > > > > > > you've fulfilled your dharma, you are obligated to help others. > > > > > > I've never seen M as a priest but a monk and anybody can be a monk, > > > > > > even a poor one.Being a monk is it's own dharma. > > > > > >  Don't know if he ever took formal vows. I take it that he > > > > > > didn't.He said to take them before one is ready is not good and it > > > > > > puts limitations on what one can do. > > > > > > > > > >
