--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, the familiar sound of the Judy Mantra: "If
> > > anyone heard anything different than I heard,
> > > or understands what Maharishi said differently than
> > > I do, they're wrong and I'm right."  :-) :-) :-)
> > > 
> > > It's nice to have a "reference standard," eh?  :-)
> > 
> > [Push button #2, Label: Judy]
> > 
> > There are obviously more people who heard it differently than you,
> > especially when you didn't hear it at all.
> Judy appeals to "Judy consensus" -- if she believes
> it, it's true. 

Thats not how I hear her. To me Judy appeals mainly to logic, and with
that I somehow feel comfortable. I have a certain resonance to logic.

> You are appealing more to "mass consensus"
> -- if enough people heard what I heard, it must be true.

Not really, no.What is true is that there are different perspectives,
enough to differ from yours. Thats legitimate, to have different
perspectives.So different people understand different things upon
hearing Maharishi. Among those differnt views are exactly the ones you
pointed out were universally missing. Those people show that this is
not true for them. They are not in denial. They are in denial with
your view only. So whatever you say about Maharishi, it only applies
to you ;-)
> Either way, you're both asserting that you know the
> "truth."

Not at all. Just asserting that others have the same
perspective.Please Barry, don't give me teachings in relativitic views. 

> I was merely making a statement about how Maharishi
> presents knowledge *vs how other teachers I've met
> present knowledge*. 

As a matter of fact as a statement of absolute truth? Why don't you
say: as it appears to me? These words would be magic... 

> Maharishi does *occasionally*
> remind people of the "knowledge is different in 
> different states of consciousness" rap. 

Occassionaly, like on thousands of printed posters, on brochures on
the front cover (remember I worked in the press), as mottos of his

> But he does
> *not* do so all that often. *More* often, he presents
> the point of view he's talking about at the time as
> if it is Truth with a capital 'T.' 

Yes? Were exactly?

> And the TBs tend
> to repeat it and swing it like a club *as if* it were
> Truth with a capital 'T.'

Oh the TB's. Good we still have them hanging around. It feels so good
not to be one, right Barry? Makes one feel so superior.

> Other teachers I've met and interacted with aren't
> like that. They'll give a nice talk about how the
> universe appears from one particular point of view,
> and almost *always* end the talk with, "But this is
> only how the universe appears from such-and-such
> point of view; it is completely false from other
> points of view." 

Oh yes, I remember reading exactly this phrase in so many books and so
many lectures I have about spiritual subjects. They do this
always.(And then commit suicide just to prove their point - no I take
that back it isn't fair, sorry ;-))

> At times, some of these teachers
> were fluid enough to start a talk by speaking 
> from one point of view (state of consciousness)
> and describing how things looked "from there,"
> and then segueing *in the same talk* into the
> completely opposite point of view, ending with
> how things looked from a different state of 
> consciousnes. 

And? Isn't that another kind of show? Look how many POV's I have, look
how I can switch from one level to the other. What's the point?

> I always found that a much more
> honest way of presenting things than I found
> Maharishi's, that's all.  These guys went the
> extra mile; Maharishi was lazy.

Some people are lazy. But Maharishi is still very much alive. There
are other things positive I could say about him: He never ran away
from his Master, always gave all credit to him. He never just took the
most popular buzzword to sell his message. He didn't invent American
Buddhism, himself coming from a bhakti background, just because it was
more hip. And he didn't go out to the deserts to re-enact popular
shamanistic novels.

To cut the story short: I don't believe in trading one Guru against
the other. These kind of comparisions lead nowhere in my eyes-

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to