Comment below: **
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <peterklutz@> > wrote: > <snip> > > Q: What is the problem with Paul Mason - is it that he is a > > closet-hater of all things TMO? > > > > A: Not exactly. > > > > Q: Then what is? > > > > A: The real problem with Paul Mason is that has so far > > been unable to work up the spine to come out of the > > closet with who he is and openly admit his orientation. > > That's certainly *my* problem with Paul Mason: > not his negative opinions of MMY, but his > inability to be straightforward about where he > stands. > > I don't know why that should be the case; perhaps > he fears cutting himself off from some of his > pro-TM sources if he's too open about what he > thinks of MMY? Maybe he's afraid it would hurt > the sales of his book? > > I think he does himself and his credibility a > lot more damage by not saying what he really > thinks. He can't keep the extreme negativity > out of what he says, but he sort of slips it in > sideways, as innuendo, and as a result comes > across as slimy and hypocritical and cowardly. > **end** Though Paul certainly has no need for outside support, I feel compelled to respond to this thread and offer mine. What is so disappointing in following this particular thread is that, despite Paul's attempt to clarify his position re Maharishi (at least 2 or 3 times within this thread), he is (not surprisingly) unable to extricate himself from mindsets already firmly set in their own concrete. Although I do not share some of Paul's opinions re Maharishi, I can understand why he might hold them. Maharishi has acted in such a way that his motivations and actions can be (and have been) viewed with suspicion and subject to criticism, even if they may have been misunderstood. Maharishi has been an intensely public figure with a very public personna that many people have found to be at odds with some other aspects of his personality. Paul's criticisms of Maharishi are grounded in what Maharishi has done and not done. In my global opinion of Maharishi, his contributions far exceed his failures, whether they be real or imagined, personal or institutional. The fact that someone, and particularly someone like Paul who has done so much hands on research on the subject, could come to a different conclusion is entirely reasonable. My own exposure to Paul has convinced me that he is an honorable, well-intentioned man who is trying to convey the truth as he understands it to be. If, in that pursuit, he attempts to clarify his position or rectify any of his conclusions then why not just accept that at face value? However, this is not an attempt to change other's opinions of Paul. Those who are chronically critical of him will continue along that path. That, too, is a way to be, though it would seem a rather bleak and bitter psychology to have to shoulder. My intention in writing this was merely to offer my support of Paul's good intentions and to vouchsafe, to the degree I know him, of his good character. I am deeply grateful to Paul for his contributions re Guru Dev and Maharishi and appreciate his scholarship. Marek
