--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > 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.
Just for the record, the phrase "shoot the messenger" implies a blameless messenger and an accurate message. As with so many others of your mantras designed to demonize TM supporters, you use "shoot the messenger" as some kind of absolute condemnation instead of recognizing that there are situations in which the messenger is not blameless and his/her message is not accurate, and therefore he or she deserves to be "shot." You, of course, demonize messengers all the time-- for example, you demonized all the scholars who have objected to the historical inaccuracies in "Apocalypto." You asserted not only that their message was inaccurate, but that they *knew* it was inaccurate, and you obviously felt they deserved to be shot. You were grossly mistaken, but the point is that whether someone is "shooting the messenger" or legitimately criticizing the messenger and his/her message is very often a matter at the very least of opinion, and in many cases a matter of plain fact. (In this case it was a matter of fact: you were indisputably "shooting" blameless messengers with accurate messages.) 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. You seem to take the position that TM critics are by definition always blameless and always accurate, and that therefore any criticism of the critics that suggests they are "somehow DAMAGED" or have "something WRONG with" them is automatically just "baggage," illegitimate. Another absolute, in other words, that admits of no distinctions. And you use that absolute to "shoot" those who may be bringing a valid message about the flaws of the critics. > 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. Here again, you assume that messages criticizing MMY and his teaching are always accurate, and that therefore any criticism of those messsages, or of the messenger, reflects even more badly on Maharishi than the criticism of him itself. As far as you're concerned, the only behavior that would *not* reflect badly on MMY would be for his supporters either to accept the criticisms of him, or to remain silent. I'd suggest that your thinking on this is at least as fanatical and absolutist as, and even less coherent than, that of the truest of TM True Believers.
