> > Rory: > > > I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from > > > Barry -- where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; > > > one is coming from a place of ungrounded attack.
--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But as I pointed out to Rory in email (and he failed > to grasp), and as Curtis points out so well below, often > I think we are *not* coming from a "place of attack." We > are merely coming from a "place" of *not cutting Maharishi > and his ideas any more slack than we would cut anyone else*. Rory: O.K., I'll try again: I am not asking you to cut MMY and his ideas any more slack than you would cut anyone else; do you think *I* do? I've already pointed many areas in which I overtly do *not* currently give those ideas much credence: TM program, Stapathya Veda, Ayurveda, Jyotish. The only aspect I *do* currently give much credence to, is Self as Being, and that's an experiential thing, not an idea per se. I am only pointing out, as I did in my email response to you (which you apparently failed to grasp), that you actually do not show equanimity here; you are *not* treating him as you would "an ordinary truck driver," for you are *still criticising him after 30 years*! I am not defending MMY here -- those are *not our only two choices* -- attack him or defend him. There is a third choice, where he simply doesn't matter to us, is not something that riles us up enough to criticise. For some reason, you still find him irritating enough to write about, in pretty much the same words, over and over and over again. What is the seed of your discontent? > Others on this forum often *perceive* this as an attack. Attack, criticism, call it what you will -- a surprisingly large expenditure of energy for a guy who claims to have left MMY and the movement 30 years ago, don't you think? It looks to me as if he is still very much on your back; very much "special" to you. > They consider Maharishi and his ideas "special." The ideas > come, after all, from someone they consider an enlightened > being, and to whom they feel the gratitude and devotion of > a "follower." As I pointed out to you in my response to your email (and you apparently failed to grasp), I am not sure I could show MMY any more respect than I give everyone else; everyone is the same "stuff," and I give everyone as much love and respect as they are comfortable receiving -- sometimes more :-). When I was feeling all that tremendous love and appreciation for MMY I was also feeling it equally for myself and everyone else, as we are all utterly divine radiant particles of Being. When you asked me in your email if I would fold my hands and bow to MMY and not to everyone else, I told you (and you failed to respond) that in FF I generally fold my hands and bow to everyone. Elsewhere, where the custom is hugging or shaking hands, I do that. As I also said, I think you're maybe missing half of the formula: Not only is everyone "ordinary," everyone is also simultaneously "divine". Curtis and I are not followers of Maharishi; > we *don't* consider him "our teacher," or "special" in any > way. He's Just A Guy, and his ideas are Just Ideas. Rory: Then why spend 30 years fighting them? That's all I'm asking. I am not defending them; I find them as indefensible as your criticisms :-) Barry: > I think I've exchanged enough ideas with Curtis to be able > to say that he finds *nothing* "insulting" or "attacking" > in this stance. Neither do I. And yet, when we treat > Maharishi here on FFL *as* Just A Guy, or his ideas as Just > Ideas, we are often accused of "attacking" him. Both Rory > and Jim (not to mention Judy) do this on a regular basis. Rory: I never called it "insulting," that's a straw dog. To me it is *not* a personal issue of "MMY deserving our respect." God knows, I have criticised him and his ideas *plenty* in my day. I'm just saying you appear to be very hung up on MMY, that's all. And on Judy as well, for that matter :-) Rory: > > > What the critic tends to miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally > > > *not* defending MMY and the TMO; we're just pointing out *that the > > > critic is attacking in an unbalanced manner*. Barry: > As *you* perceive "balance." As I pointed out above, if > that perception of "balance" includes giving Maharishi or > his ideas a deference that you would not give to the some- > one else here on FFL, or to their ideas, then the person > who is "unbalanced" is YOU, not the person you are > criticizing. Rory: I have never implied that "balance includes giving MMY or his ideas deference." Balance means giving statements that manifest personal integrity, as opposed to giving wildly sweeping inaccuracies which are unsupportable or easily picked apart. A relatively unbalanced example might be my saying something like "MMY's stapathya veda is rampant foolishness designed only to rake in yet more money from his easily-gulled followers," as opposed to a more balanced "I have walked through and felt out a stapathya-veda house or two and -- aside from the typical new-house spaciousness -- perceived nothing particularly special about them. I personally prefer a good Victorian house, south door and all, which shows a quality of material and craftsmanship essentially unmatchable today, and is far more affordable," -- which latter is actually my current experience and stance, subject of course, and always, to change. Attack and deference are not our only two choices. There is a third -- integrity, equanimity. As for the rest, I'll just reiterate that I am not saying you guys are "damaged" -- just that you and Vaj (Curtis less so) seem self- condemned to repeat yourselves over and over, making broad, sweeping (and easily disputed) statements without ever getting to your personal integrity, to your undisputable personal experience, and to the core of your discontent, where IME great treasure lies. *L*L*L*
