Barry shows us still more of his remarkable ability to fantasize... --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" > <markmeredith@> wrote: > > > > The options Judy lays out is that everyone must either accept > > MMY's claim that he is a "great rishi" and an authentic yogi > > and address him such or they're being disrepectful of him. > > To simply not view him as a great rishi, which according the > > spiritual texts I've read is quite an exclusive title, without > > any disrespect is not an option. This is a version of "if > > you're not with us, you're against us". It's the common > > attitude of authoritarian communities. > > That's a little harsh, Mark.
And factually incorrect. After all, these are certified > "anti-TMers" Judy is talking about who refer to MMY that > way. We know this is true because she said it. Well, no, I didn't say that, actually. Some are, some aren't. (Some anti-TMers refer to him as "Mahesh," some don't, for that matter. Have you ever seen Barry calling him "Mahesh"?) > It would only be "authoritarian" if these were real human > beings, with feelings, who deserve respect. But since that > is clearly not the case, those who know the Truth are > entitled to treat them with disrespect when they treat > MMY with disrespect by referring to him by his given name No, when they hypocritically pretend it's not disrespectful to do so. <snip> > > I'm not sure this is a big deal or not. The white house > > makes sure the media refer to bush's estate in texas as > > a "ranch" even though there's absolutely nothing ranchy > > going on there. This is to reinforce his image as an > > average joe in the minds of the electorate. > > That is *exactly* the reason that the apologists...uh, > sorry...Upholders Of Natural Law get so uptight about > this. The "ranch" is FICTION. Calling Mahesh a rishi, > much less a Maharishi, is FICTION. Those who have bought > into this fiction for decades get really, really uptight > when someone points out that they've believed a FICTION > for all those years, especially when they themselves know > it's true. So to keep from dealing with their own gulli- > bility, they lash out. > > That's what I honestly think is going on. And as usual you got it completely wrong, at least where I'm concerned, just as you did in your previous post on this. Nowhere have I suggested that those who don't respect Maharishi don't have a perfect right to express that disrespect. My *only* point here is that they shouldn't pretend they're not being disrespectful by referring to him as "Mahesh." <snip> > But...but...but...but...doncha see that BY DEFINITION if > their "current understanding" of him is that he doesn't > deserve the fictional title of Maharishi, such a person > is automatically an Official Anti-TMer? Wrong again... > Such a position is WRONG ...and wrong again. My beef here is with *hypocrisy*, not with disrespecting Maharishi. 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/
