--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > > > Agreed. Each of the criticisms of Maharishi and each of > > > the praises of him, or responses to the criticisms should > > > be judged on their own merits. I agree that Barry looks > > > pretty one-sided sometimes, as if he has already made up > > > his mind regarding any responses to a criticism of > > > Maharishi and what that represents to him. > > > > Jim, this is an *assumption* on your part, and, as > > it turns out, an *erroneous* assumption. I have NO > > OPINION on the questions Paul asked, because I don't > > know the answers. It really doesn't MATTER to me > > whether Maharishi is a well-meaning but flawed monk > > or a con man. I don't have any opinion on the subject > > at all. He's not my teacher; I have nothing invested > > in him one way or another. But you obviously do. > > > > I think that what you're upset about is that Paul is > > asking the questions that YOU should have asked 'way > > back when, and never did. > > > > These questions should have been asked back in 1959, > > and by every person who learned TM along the way. But > > they weren't. Most people just treated everything that > > Maharishi said as if it were automatically some cosmic > > truth, and accepted it as Truth. And now, when someone > > asks the simple questions that they should have asked, > > and would have asked of anyone who was trying to sell > > them something other than meditation, they get all > > upset and try to trash the person who is asking these > > questions now as if he's some kind of heretic. > > > > I think you're angry at YOURSELF for never questioning > > the stories you bought about Maharishi's background, > > and the nature of his relationship with Guru Dev, and > > whether Guru Dev would ever have approved of what > > Maharishi has done in his name. > > > > I don't know the truth of the situation. Neither, as > > far as I can tell, does Paul. But at least he had the > > balls to ASK THE QUESTIONS, and you didn't. He had the > > initiative to TRY TO FIND OUT, and you didn't. You > > just believed what you were told to believe. > > > > I do NOT necessarily agree with the commentary Paul > > included in his last "question." But it doesn't bother > > me in the least that he included it. That is his right. > > What he expressed was his *opinion*, formed after years > > of doing the legwork that no one else was ever willing > > to do. It really doesn't matter AT ALL to me what Paul > > or anyone else says about Maharishi. WHY does it bother > > you? Do you somehow believe that it is impolite or > > insulting to ask questions of Maharishi that you'd > > probably ask of any other salesman trying to sell you > > something? > > > > Would you shirk at asking John Gray about how the 'Ph.D.' > > suddenly started appearing at the end of his name on his > > promotional materials? IF you asked, you might learn that > > the "degree" came from the University of P.O. Box 2000, > > and that the "course of study" involved in earning that > > degree consisted of putting a check in the mail. Would > > asking about *that* be impolite or insulting? If not, why > > would questioning Maharishi's claim to a degree he seems > > unable to document be impolite or insulting? Why would > > asking him whether Guru Dev *really* taught him TM be > > inappropriate, or asking him ANY other question? > > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
I rest my case. True Believers are the worst possible advertisement for any spiritual path.
