--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmmm. So criticizing Maharishi means *by definition* > that one is "riled up." Did I get that correctly? > More below.
Essentially, yes. > > 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? Yes. > 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. Your choice! I hope you enjoy your Bardo :-) > > > 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." No, Barry, I won't. I already tried to do you a favor, to show you how to "fight fair" and make statements with personal integrity, and thus to avoid making an ass of youself. I've already said that I don't have Judy's patience or her tolerance for abuse, and I'm not going to go rummaging through the archives to bolster an obvious point, all the while ignoring your abuse -- calling my attempts to help "cowardly" and "schoolyard bullying," etc. To put it bluntly, I love you, but you're thinking and talking like a drunk, and I just don't have the time to waste arguing with a drunk. I've already shown you the difference between a relatively balanced and an unbalanced statement. If that's not good enough for you, so be it. > > 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. Carry on in your ignorance regardless; I've apparently given you more of my attention than you merit already. :-)
