Even if Maharishi were still living, a figure that is well known in the public
space is open to certain kinds of criticism that is not directed at them
personally but at the wake their lives make in the public space. You can only
personally affront someone directly, in person, on the phone, in a conversation
on-line, in a snail mail letter, etc. In a group the conversation is not
private but still one can direct a backhanded compliment to someone here, and
where that crosses the line is to my mind a grey area, though I would say in
the past you crossed that line at times in relation to the Yahoo guidelines.
There are other ways to get around that, just as comedic writers on TV have
found ways to get around direct references that nonetheless passed by the
censors.
Now what about Buddhists? The Buddha's concept of no-self would indicate that
you could not really ever insult anyone because that person's sense of self was
really a fiction, and insulting something that is not real would be a waste of
time, except for it being so much fun if the person is able to take it in
stride.
Insults have been a teaching practice:
'The Prime Minister of the Tang Dynasty was a national hero for his
success as both a statesman and military leader. But despite his fame, power,
and wealth, he considered himself a humble and devout Buddhist. Often he
visited his favorite Zen master to study under him, and they seemed to get
along very well. The fact that he was prime minister apparently had no effect
on their relationship, which seemed to be simply one of a revered master and
respectful student. One day, during his usual visit, the Prime Minister asked
the master, "Your Reverence, what is egotism according to Buddhism?" The
master's face turned red, and in a very condescending and insulting tone of
voice, he shot back, "What kind of stupid question is that!?" This unexpected
response so shocked the Prime Minister that he became sullen and angry. The Zen
master then smiled and said, "THIS, Your Excellency, is egotism."'
The main problem has been discussed here many times, that when a particular
idea gets so attached to personal identity, if that idea alone is discredited,
then the person feels they too are being discredited and insulted. If you ever
saw the Jerry Springer show on TV, what you see is this particular situation
being acted out on a very emotional primate level. When we are typing into a
computer, and it is posted as text, it softens it a bit, but the primitive
reactions still get stimulated.
Take for example the statement 'My country right or wrong!'. From this we can
deduce logically 'My country wrong!'. When put this way, it sounds a lot less
patriotic, almost idiotic in fact, but when a person says 'My country right or
wrong!', they are also saying they support wrong-headedness, that they want to
support a mistake, even though the statement is intended to sound positive and
generate positive feelings for one's homeland.
The point is to attack ideas for their idiocy, and the idiot that holds the
idea will feel affronted because they sense it too, but because they have been
so attached to it, are unwilling to unload the idea to save their 'person' from
the affront. If they let go of the idea, they will just experience existing.
The other method is one you frequently use:
There once lived a great warrior. Though quite old, he still was able to
defeat any challenger. His reputation extended far and wide throughout the land
and many students gathered to study under him.
One day an infamous young warrior arrived at the village. He was determined to
be the first man to defeat the great master. Along with his strength, he had an
uncanny ability to spot and exploit any weakness in an opponent. He would wait
for his opponent to make the first move, thus revealing a weakness, and then
would strike with merciless force and lightning speed. No one had ever lasted
with him in a match beyond the first move.
Much against the advice of his concerned students, the old master gladly
accepted the young warrior's challenge. As the two squared off for battle, the
young warrior began to hurl insults at the old master. He threw dirt and spit
in his face. For hours he verbally assaulted him with every curse and insult
known to mankind. But the old warrior merely stood there motionless and calm.
Finally, the young warrior exhausted himself. Knowing he was defeated, he left
feeling shamed.
Somewhat disappointed that he did not fight the insolent youth, the students
gathered around the old master and questioned him. "How could you endure such
an indignity? How did you drive him away?"
"If someone comes to give you a gift and you do not receive it," the master
replied, "to whom does the gift belong?"
Those on The Peak have missed out on much.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Does the term 'unkindness' ever refer to a dead person?
Great opening line. It's a fine, fairly warm sunset evening here on the patio
at De La Soul, so I think I'll ponder it just the opening line and snip the
rest of your excellent post. No offense intended. Really.
My answer to your question is "No." One can *by definition* never be "unkind"
to a dead person. They're...uh...dead. Let's face it...to believe that there is
someone still "there" enough in a dead person to feel that something said about
them by one of the living was "unkind," then you're saying that you believe
they weren't enlightened, and thus still stuck in the reincarnation cycle. If
they are enlightened in the Maharishi model, at death they become the drop
merged with the ocean and there isn't any "them" still around to be unkind
*to*.
Which is interesting in the context of all this this latest soap opera
hysteria on Fairfield Life, because if people are honest, what it's really
about is that a few living people became so offended at what was said in
passing about a dead person that they went bat-shit crazy.
Some found this stuff said about a dead person so uptight-making and
button-pushing that they freaked out and ran away to form their own cliques, in
which they would presumably never have to hear the dead person treated so
unkindly again. Others, including many who still hold the dead person in some
regard, didn't pay much attention to it, and went on about living their lives.
Go figure...different strokes for different folks.
And so at the end of all this kerfuffle we find ourselves in a situation in
which the people who pretended that someone was unkind to *them* because he was
in their view unkind to a dead person (who by definition one cannot be unkind
to) are still trying to "get" the person who they feel was unkind to that which
one cannot possibly be unkind to.
It's all kinda Zen and weird, if you ask me... :-)
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Does the term 'unkindness' ever refer to a dead person?
Great opening line. It's a fine, fairly warm sunset evening here on the patio
at De La Soul, so I think I'll ponder it just the opening line and snip the
rest of your excellent post. No offense intended. Really.
My answer to your question is "No." One can *by definition* never be "unkind"
to a dead person. They're...uh...dead. Let's face it...to believe that there is
someone still "there" enough in a dead person to feel that something said about
them by one of the living was "unkind," then you're saying that you believe
they weren't enlightened, and thus still stuck in the reincarnation cycle. If
they are enlightened in the Maharishi model, at death they become the drop
merged with the ocean and there isn't any "them" still around to be unkind
*to*.
Which is interesting in the context of all this this latest soap opera
hysteria on Fairfield Life, because if people are honest, what it's really
about is that a few living people became so offended at what was said in
passing about a dead person that they went bat-shit crazy.
Some found this stuff said about a dead person so uptight-making and
button-pushing that they freaked out and ran away to form their own cliques, in
which they would presumably never have to hear the dead person treated so
unkindly again. Others, including many who still hold the dead person in some
regard, didn't pay much attention to it, and went on about living their lives.
Go figure...different strokes for different folks.
And so at the end of all this kerfuffle we find ourselves in a situation in
which the people who pretended that someone was unkind to *them* because he was
in their view unkind to a dead person (who by definition one cannot be unkind
to) are still trying to "get" the person who they feel was unkind to that which
one cannot possibly be unkind to.
It's all kinda Zen and weird, if you ask me... :-)
