--- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > O.K., I'll try again
So will I. :-) > 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. Hmmm. So criticizing Maharishi means *by definition* that one is "riled up." Did I get that correctly? More below. > 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? Again, you see "irritating" and "discontent" in the act of criticizing either him or his ideas. To quote you, is that the only choice? Could it possibly be that I (I can't speak for Curtis) am interested in spiritual groups *in general*, and in the things that people on a spiritual path believe? And, in general, I can talk Maharishi-speak (the TM- specific jargon), so it is easier to talk with other people on *this* spiritual path than, say, Scientology or Sikhs or other groups that have a jargon all their own. I find many of the things that people believe in beyond criticism; but other things I find very definitely deserving of criticism. And when they come up, I criticize them, *just* as I would in a truck driver. > > 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. And I think you're projecting. And here's a test to see whether you are or not. Do me a favor -- go back and find three quotes of mine and three quotes of Curtis' *during the last three months* that you feel are overly critical of Maharishi, and that display the "anger," the "attacks," the "irri- tation" and the "discontent" you speak of. You have accused Curtis and I of speaking in generalities. That's what I think you're doing. Put up or shut up. *Don't* speak in generalities. Find three quotes from each of us, during the time period specified, and repost them here. *Then* go through for each one and present the *reasons* that you find them "angry," "attacking," "irritated" and/or "discontented." I'll wait. I'm genuinely interested in what you find, and why you see it that way. If you *don't* do this, I think I'm justified in ignor- ing *your* criticism in the future, right? Without spec- ifics, your claims are just as generalized as you claim ours are. Produce the quotes you are talking about, not from the distant past, not a general impression you've gotten over a long period of time, but recently, during the last three months. I can think of a couple of comments of mine that you might choose; I'm having trouble remembering any of Curtis' that you might choose. So do this, and then we can continue the discussion. Don't do it, and you can consider the subject dropped, and your comments on this subject in the future ignored. Barry/Unc/Turq/whatever
