--- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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.
Cool. Your call. I don't think there is anything more to be said. Your view is the *only* possible view. That doesn't leave any room for discussion. > > 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 :-) And you yours. > > > > 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. So be it. You prefer generalities to backing up what you say. And you declare your point of view to be the only valid point of view (as you did above). I was open to seeing your point of view. I was actually curious to see if you *could* back up your generalitites with specific examples. I see that you can't. Have fun believing what you believe (which is your right) and making your declarations about the "truth" of the situation, as defined by your point of view on the situation. And continue doing so without ever providing a single example to back it up. Lots of people here will buy that. Then again, lots of people here have bought a *lot* of things during their time with Maharishi and the TMO. > > 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. > > :-) I see you've been studying at the Jim Flanegin School Of Enlightened Behavior. May it serve you well. To others who may be following this silliness -- this is the thing that Curtis has been talking about, folks who are so convinced that their perceived state of consciousness enables them to perceive "truth." The "truth" that they perceive *is* the *only* way that things can be seen; any other peception is untruth, or deluded, or angry. Some folks are so comfortable with this world view that they call it spiritual. Or even enlightenment. I think it's just good, old-fashioned ego, with a soupçon of fanaticism. But if it makes them happy, cool. I guess.
