What a fundie pompous asshole. Tell him to email mail
me if he wants to have some fun. Arrogant fool.
--- Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My friend's response:
>
>
>
> The thing is, all these oppositions you have, we
> could take each one, one at
> a time, and examine them, like the Zimbabwe
> dictator, Maharishi and Mia
> Farrow and the rest, the tallest building, Rajas,
> etc. etc. etc., but the
> individual issues like these will be endless -- your
> list will never run out
> -- because it's rooted in something deeper within
> you than the individual
> items and examples. What I've found w/TM-X type
> people, and most of the
> fringe roos in Ff (even the more intelligent ones,
> such as LB), it's kind of
> like talking to the KKK. I read a book once by a
> journalist who went down
> south and interviewed all these KKK crackers -- the
> leaders, the current and
> former Grand Wizards and Dragons -- hoping to get at
> the more thoughtful and
> intellectual underpinnings of their prejudices, some
> more valid sounding
> justifications to write about (perhaps he was hoping
> at least for something
> as intelligent sounding as the Bertrand Russell and
> some of the other
> quotes you sent me; although, Russell, whom it
> sounds cool and intelligent
> to quote, is really not such a good reference for a
> six-pack Hindu Joe like
> yourself, because his empiricist philosophical
> school denied the very
> possibility of consciousness ever experiencing
> consciousness). What the
> journalist found was, they really had no
> intellectual foundations for their
> beliefs. They were all a bunch of dumb-ass rednecks
> who had no further
> justifications than, "Those bunch of goddamn coons.
> I hate em."
>
>
>
> We both know that your world view is not based on
> surface issues such as,
> "What about Maharishi's praise of Robert Mugabe?" or
> "Well, then why didn't
> they build the tallest building in the world yet?"
> (Arguments, as Bobby
> showed, easily blown out of the murky waters of
> doubt.) And I'm not
> comparing you to the KKK, although most of the
> oppositions and prejudices I
> hear from the Ff fringe are no more thoughtful than
> racism. I am saying that
> the intellectual underpinnings are simply rooted in
> a belief system that is
> a projection of something deeper than sense data and
> logic; it's about how
> you process that data and interpret it, which has
> nothing to do with
> discrimination and logic, but with the feeling
> level, and the feeling level
> is rooted in the fibers of your being, constituted
> by karma, gunas, planets,
> the whole package of who you are. You FEEL more
> comfortable reducing
> Maharishi to a relative personality, with flaws like
> all of us, who may know
> less about Vedic knowledge than some gay cowboy
> named Dana or Oscar or LeRoy
> who went to India and studied with the Hindu status
> quo; you don't FEEL
> comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of
> pure knowledge, the only
> Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas,
> because that would not fit
> into your world view and that is not how you feel
> comfortable with yourself.
> There are no plausible intellectual reasonings to
> justify a particular
> relative world view; in the end, it's all about
> justifying one's individual
> existence, arranging ones sense of self to survive
> and more comfortably "be"
> in the world; thinking the way you think because of
> who you are, modifying
> your thoughts and attitudes in a way that will allow
> you to feel most
> resolved in your relationship with everyone around
> you. Character is fate.
>
>
>
> What I will argue against, Ricky, is your adhering
> to these lines of
> reasoning, using lame examples to justify your
> beliefs, calling people
> fundamentalists if they don't agree with you on
> these surface issues, and
> your presenting of all these "facts" on your website
> to support your world
> view when the real discrepancy between all these
> view points is not these
> confused issues themselves but what lies
>
> deeper: the feeling level of acceptance or
> rejection, which is based on how
> much love and how much universal sympathy and
> support for all beings there
> is deep in one's heart. That and a degree of
> brainwave coherence, or lack
> thereof.
>
>
>
> Amma, 'one of the beautiful flowers rising up as the
> Age of Enlightenment
> dawns,' would never waste time putting Maharishi
> down.
>
> There's way too much love and clarity in her heart.
> But instead, says of
> him, "The greatest meditation teacher who ever
> walked the earth,"
>
> as quoted to me by one of her disciples. (I
> experienced her adoration on
> Maharishi myself once when I spoke to her about
> him.)
>
>
>
> You tell me I need to challenge my assumptions
> because I don't FEEL like you
> do about Maharishi. You use Bertrand Russell quotes
> to imply that I need to
> see things oppositely because I'm aligned with
> Maharishi and support him
> wholeheartedly. You tell me, in so many words, that
> I still stand 100% in
> the Movement only because I merely believe what I've
> been told. You, by way
> of inserting quotes, tell me I'm a fundamentalist
> because I am unwaveringly
> devoted to the Master. Perhaps I deserve that
> condescending treatment
> because I tell you outright that you're deluded. But
> Ricky, it's only your
> use of these flaky superficial arguments against
> Maharishi that I dismiss,
> so you will see through them. If you want to embrace
> Amma that's not an
> unevolutionary thing. But your negativity
> masquerading as rationality, you
> know better than that and need to go deeper into
> that universal love where
> all this is resolved and there's no mucky opposition
> in your awareness. Yes
> I'm telling you what you need because I know the
> Vikings and your fondness
> for goats have gotten to you.
>
>
>
> You could never "dampen" the "enthusiasm or
> devotion" of these people,
> because it is self-referral, true and real and pure.
> Because your "facts"
> are not facts at all, but whining expressions of
> doubt and misinformation,
> rooted in whatever feelings are there inside you.
>
> But truth is not based on feeling. It just is.
> Maybe you're the one who
> needs to consider that the opposite is true.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready
for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
