Paul, I think I've already said everything I've got to say on this subject, in the posts I made yesterday and in the little film review I just posted parts of. What you wrote didn't "set off" the fanatics who attacked you in response to it. Their own insecurities about their beliefs and their need to dominate and control those who challenge those beliefs is what set them off.
The fascinating thing to me is that all you had to do was post a few conclusions suggesting that Maharishi's teachings were not all they were cracked up to be, and that his followers might not be nearly as happy, fulfilled and enlightened as they pretend to be. And then you just sat back and said nothing more, while a few of those same followers basically made your point *for you* with their actions, and while the saner ones here didn't react *at all*. Good luck in your continuing research, and on your continuing spiritual journey. Unc --- In [email protected], "Paul Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turquoise, > I thought I'd pop back to get a rain check on my posting yesterday > and the first post I saw was yours. The odd thing is that I haven't > really said anything at http://tmfree.blogspot.com/ that should upset > anyone. After three and a half decades of research on the topic, I > just distilled a few points, that must be common knowledge to those > posting on FFL. Surely? > I was surprised anyone responded to it actually. > As for the idea of me being damaged. Well I can only use Maharishi's > excellent analogy, that one's vision is determined by the tint of the > glasses one wears. If I am being perceived as damaged, then perhaps > they need to refresh their outlook. > The Maharishi and the movement have had ample time and opportunity to > put me right about any information I might have got askew. In fact I > wrote an open letter addressed to the man himself, asking that he do > just that. Since I already had a friendship with Bevan Morris, it > would have been so easy for him to clear up any misconceptions and > these could have been included in the revised edition. > Hey ho, > Paul > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul Mason" <premanandpaul@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Peter, > > > > > > you are asking why I continue speak out about MMY and his > teachings. > > > > > > The answer is remarkably simple. > > > > > > Having learned TM I decided to practice it come-what-may, for at > > > least ten years, to see how it measured up to its claims. I > decided > > > to let the time run longer, and longer, and longer. (In fact I > even > > > vowed to continue its practise even if MMY disavowed the > teaching.) > > > > > > I put the together 'The Maharishi: The Man Who Gave > Transcendental > > > Meditation to the World', and as Vaj rightly says, it is the only > > > objective biography of the man and his teaching extant. But I > didn't > > > stop researching the Maharishi, TM and his master, I kept up the > > > project for much longer, and I have shared much of the Guru Dev > > > translation work free-of-charge on my website > > > http://www.paulmason.info/ . > > > > > > I kept practising the TM technique more many more years after the > > > publication. > > > But after more than three and a half decades it struck me it was > > > about time I actually decided it was time to come to some sort of > > > verdict, about TM and about MMY. > > > > > > Since I am recognised as an authority on the subject (at least by > > > those honest enough to admit it) I thought I'd share my verdict. > I > > > posted this on TM-Free Blog a few days ago. But afterwards I > > > realised that there must still be great many people who still > don't > > > even have the basic points. > > > > > > I notice you don't attempt to correct me on any point raised in > the > > > blog. That is interesting, very interesting > > > > > > Finally, the suggestion that I get on and attend to my own life. > > > Well, as it happens, I most certainly do (which is the main > reason I > > > seldom log on to the TM forums. But, as it happens I consider > that > > > sharing the enormous amount of research on the MMY is a part of > > > attending to my life. > > > > > > It would be all too convenient for those who just want to hear > sweet > > > truths if I were to be quiet. > > > > > > You have your views on MMY, I have never once tried to silence > you > > > or anyone else on the subject. I have never suggested that you go > > > and attend to your life. > > > > > > It seems the truth has got you just a tad mad at me, just a tad. > But > > > as another responent pointed out to someone else, don't shoot the > > > messenger or in your case encourage the messenger to turn his > > > attention to something else. It sounds just a bit like that bit > in > > > the Wizard of Oz, when Dorothy and Toto were told to ignore 'the > Man > > > Behind The Curtain'. > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > PS To the so-called supports of the Maharishi and of TM, on FFL, > > > don't convince me much, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of > > > time and energy sparring and being unpleasant to one another, and > to > > > those you perceive as threats. Is that what practising TM impels > you > > > to do? It never did that to me, that's for sure. > > > > Nice statement, Paul. > > > > What we saw in the last couple of days, in reaction to > > the things you've posted, is a far greater condemnation > > of Maharishi than anything you could have written about > > him. > > > > Most of the responses here on Fairfield Life to what > > you wrote had a clear and unmistakable intent. They > > were intended to "shoot the messenger" and to demonize > > you. In three cases (the ravings of Frank Lotz and Peter > > Klutz and Nablusos), they did this *literally*, saying > > explicitly that you were in league with demonic forces. > > The rest who railed against you here did *exactly* what > > I suggested a few days ago that TMers With Baggage > > *would* do in a situation like this, and tried to > > portray you as somehow DAMAGED, and having something > > WRONG with you because of what you said. > > > > In my opinion this response is cult behavior, and the > > fact that Maharishi allowed and even cultivated it in > > his students says more about him and his teachings > > than anything you could possibly have written. The > > people who went on and on "defending" him and his > > teachings, and doing so by trying to trash you, made > > far more of a statement against Maharishi and his > > teachings than you did. > > >
