[FairfieldLife] Re: What is the dumbest, most samskaric job ever?

[iranitea]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 It seems to me (especially skimming over the FFL posts 
 for the last few days) that it's the job of apologist.
 
 Once one has set oneself (and one's self) up to perform
 that task, it's almost possible to ever quit and take
 another job. You're stuck with it pretty much forever.
 
 At first, the fledgling apologist acts out of a sense 
 of loyalty or True Believerism, protecting or (in his
 or her mind) defending an ego (e.g., Maharishi) or 
 a collection of egos (e.g., the TM movement) that it 
 believes in. 
 
 But after a short time doing this, the apologist's
 *own* ego gets involved. Every defense begins to be 
 seen as a defense not only of the ego they've chosen
 to defend, but their own ego as well. To back down
 or resign becomes less and less possible. They're
 pretty much stuck with their self-assigned role 
 forever, to protect their *own* ego as much as the
 ego of the teacher or the org. 
 
 Sad, if you ask me. But karma, dude.

Barry, spot-on analysis. I don't say this to just agree with you one more time, 
or to flatter you, but because the same thought occurred to me, when observing 
a certain poster here. And this is another example of a spiritual perspective 
you are bringing in to this discussion, I don't know how people could ever miss 
this, or are so prejudiced towards you (and in association towards me as well 
probably by now) to not see it for what it is.

You start out by saying, that such defense by apologists is very much motivated 
by ego. The point is, if you attack a certain system (TM) or my master, you 
attack me, basically, so the ego feels hurt and reacts, to defend itself. I am 
not saying, that nobody should ever defend him or Herself, or something one is 
involved in, but it is good to point out what is actually involved: ego. 

It is the same if somebody says, I follow the highest teaching, or the highest 
teacher, or let's say the best meditation technique, or even the only truly 
effective meditation technique, all this is ego without doubt. Or if somebody 
says, I am in the highest state of consciousness, or if somebody says I was in 
the highest state, but abandoned it, as I found it delusional. You still claim 
that you have been where hardly anyone else was, and then go on to say that it 
sucks, with the subtext, that only you understand it, and that you have gone 
'beyond' even though beyond should mean that you are just back to 'normal'.

So, I think that this, defending, but also 'feeling special, is ego, is at 
least something that anybody should be AWARE of, and see it for what it is. 
That attributing the highest state to a teacher or technique or tradition is 
understandable, but it is at the same time a transference of ones own ego on 
some object or subject one identifies with strongly. It would be ultimately the 
job of the guru to smash this notion, but that's another story.

And, well I made the same observation, that the obsession some people here have 
shown, with defending TM and winning arguments, actually is being transformed 
into something that has hardly anything to do with TM anymore, but becomes an 
obsession with people who are regarded as enemies. Interestingly, in giving in 
to the ego for a long and extended period, it seems the ego is claiming it's 
place in a more direct way, and the quarrel and obsession becomes an end in 
itself.

It could of course be argued, that your post itself, would be just an example 
of trying to dumb certain people, and that my reply, would be just in the same 
category, that also this would be ego driven. This could be said of any 
argument of course, but it also depends on ho much a person is obsessed with 
it, trying to 'win'. Besides that I think that it is worthwhile to simply point 
it out. This whole point belongs to my spiritual 101, and everybody should know 
about it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: What is the dumbest, most samskaric job ever?

[turquoiseb]

It's just too sad to participate in any more. It feels
like being challenged by Monty Python's Black Knight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

I'm invincible!
You're looney.
The Black Knight always triumphs! Come on then...
[ armless and legless, the Black Knight finally says ]
All right then, we'll call it a draw...

The ego always finds a way to win.

A few weeks ago, I described the vibe of the TBs here
with the word desperation. I was clearly mistaken.
That was merely near desperation. We're getting 
closer to real desperation now. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  It seems to me (especially skimming over the FFL posts 
  for the last few days) that it's the job of apologist.
  
  Once one has set oneself (and one's self) up to perform
  that task, it's almost possible to ever quit and take
  another job. You're stuck with it pretty much forever.
  
  At first, the fledgling apologist acts out of a sense 
  of loyalty or True Believerism, protecting or (in his
  or her mind) defending an ego (e.g., Maharishi) or 
  a collection of egos (e.g., the TM movement) that it 
  believes in. 
  
  But after a short time doing this, the apologist's
  *own* ego gets involved. Every defense begins to be 
  seen as a defense not only of the ego they've chosen
  to defend, but their own ego as well. To back down
  or resign becomes less and less possible. They're
  pretty much stuck with their self-assigned role 
  forever, to protect their *own* ego as much as the
  ego of the teacher or the org. 
  
  Sad, if you ask me. But karma, dude.
 
 Barry, spot-on analysis. I don't say this to just agree with you one more 
 time, or to flatter you, but because the same thought occurred to me, when 
 observing a certain poster here. And this is another example of a spiritual 
 perspective you are bringing in to this discussion, I don't know how people 
 could ever miss this, or are so prejudiced towards you (and in association 
 towards me as well probably by now) to not see it for what it is.
 
 You start out by saying, that such defense by apologists is very much 
 motivated by ego. The point is, if you attack a certain system (TM) or my 
 master, you attack me, basically, so the ego feels hurt and reacts, to defend 
 itself. I am not saying, that nobody should ever defend him or Herself, or 
 something one is involved in, but it is good to point out what is actually 
 involved: ego. 
 
 It is the same if somebody says, I follow the highest teaching, or the 
 highest teacher, or let's say the best meditation technique, or even the only 
 truly effective meditation technique, all this is ego without doubt. Or if 
 somebody says, I am in the highest state of consciousness, or if somebody 
 says I was in the highest state, but abandoned it, as I found it delusional. 
 You still claim that you have been where hardly anyone else was, and then go 
 on to say that it sucks, with the subtext, that only you understand it, and 
 that you have gone 'beyond' even though beyond should mean that you are just 
 back to 'normal'.
 
 So, I think that this, defending, but also 'feeling special, is ego, is at 
 least something that anybody should be AWARE of, and see it for what it is. 
 That attributing the highest state to a teacher or technique or tradition is 
 understandable, but it is at the same time a transference of ones own ego on 
 some object or subject one identifies with strongly. It would be ultimately 
 the job of the guru to smash this notion, but that's another story.
 
 And, well I made the same observation, that the obsession some people here 
 have shown, with defending TM and winning arguments, actually is being 
 transformed into something that has hardly anything to do with TM anymore, 
 but becomes an obsession with people who are regarded as enemies. 
 Interestingly, in giving in to the ego for a long and extended period, it 
 seems the ego is claiming it's place in a more direct way, and the quarrel 
 and obsession becomes an end in itself.
 
 It could of course be argued, that your post itself, would be just an example 
 of trying to dumb certain people, and that my reply, would be just in the 
 same category, that also this would be ego driven. This could be said of any 
 argument of course, but it also depends on ho much a person is obsessed with 
 it, trying to 'win'. Besides that I think that it is worthwhile to simply 
 point it out. This whole point belongs to my spiritual 101, and everybody 
 should know about it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: What is the dumbest, most samskaric job ever?

[authfriend]

I might point out that you guys are going to have to
try to play both ends against the middle if you want
your profound spiritual perspective here about how
apologists are ego-driven to apply to me. (That's
why you're not mentioning names, BTW, so you can
avoid having to deal with this.)

I'm an apologist for certain aspects of TM/the TMO/
MMY, no question about it.

However, I'm *also* an apologist for a person who
has rejected TM/the TMO/MMY more radically than anyone
else who's ever posted to FFL (i.e., Robin).

Now, you could claim that my apologism is ego-driven
in that it has nothing to do with TM either way but
rather with winning over my enemies.

OK, but then you have to account for the fact that I'm
arguing with Lawson, for whom I've always been somewhat
of an apologist with regard to his defense of TM.

It depends on the specific apologist, of course, but
I'd suggest that you need to acknowledge that it's
possible for a person to engage in apologias for what
they believe is right, independently of any fixed
personal agenda (in this case, pro or con TM). IOW,
their apologism is on behalf of what they perceive to
be fair, accurate, logical, and honest, even if that
means the points of view they're defending are 
sometimes in conflict.

I'd be the last to claim I'm egoless. Just want to
point out that the apologist role is not always as
cut-and-dried as it's being portrayed.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  It seems to me (especially skimming over the FFL posts 
  for the last few days) that it's the job of apologist.
  
  Once one has set oneself (and one's self) up to perform
  that task, it's almost possible to ever quit and take
  another job. You're stuck with it pretty much forever.
  
  At first, the fledgling apologist acts out of a sense 
  of loyalty or True Believerism, protecting or (in his
  or her mind) defending an ego (e.g., Maharishi) or 
  a collection of egos (e.g., the TM movement) that it 
  believes in. 
  
  But after a short time doing this, the apologist's
  *own* ego gets involved. Every defense begins to be 
  seen as a defense not only of the ego they've chosen
  to defend, but their own ego as well. To back down
  or resign becomes less and less possible. They're
  pretty much stuck with their self-assigned role 
  forever, to protect their *own* ego as much as the
  ego of the teacher or the org. 
  
  Sad, if you ask me. But karma, dude.
 
 Barry, spot-on analysis. I don't say this to just agree with
 you one more time, or to flatter you,

Or be an apologist for you.

snicker

 but because the same thought occurred to me, when observing a certain poster 
 here. And this is another example of a spiritual perspective you are bringing 
 in to this discussion, I don't know how people could ever miss this, or are 
 so prejudiced towards you (and in association towards me as well probably by 
 now) to not see it for what it is.
 
 You start out by saying, that such defense by apologists is very much 
 motivated by ego. The point is, if you attack a certain system (TM) or my 
 master, you attack me, basically, so the ego feels hurt and reacts, to defend 
 itself. I am not saying, that nobody should ever defend him or Herself, or 
 something one is involved in, but it is good to point out what is actually 
 involved: ego. 
 
 It is the same if somebody says, I follow the highest teaching, or the 
 highest teacher, or let's say the best meditation technique, or even the only 
 truly effective meditation technique, all this is ego without doubt. Or if 
 somebody says, I am in the highest state of consciousness, or if somebody 
 says I was in the highest state, but abandoned it, as I found it delusional. 
 You still claim that you have been where hardly anyone else was, and then go 
 on to say that it sucks, with the subtext, that only you understand it, and 
 that you have gone 'beyond' even though beyond should mean that you are just 
 back to 'normal'.
 
 So, I think that this, defending, but also 'feeling special, is ego, is at 
 least something that anybody should be AWARE of, and see it for what it is. 
 That attributing the highest state to a teacher or technique or tradition is 
 understandable, but it is at the same time a transference of ones own ego on 
 some object or subject one identifies with strongly. It would be ultimately 
 the job of the guru to smash this notion, but that's another story.
 
 And, well I made the same observation, that the obsession some people here 
 have shown, with defending TM and winning arguments, actually is being 
 transformed into something that has hardly anything to do with TM anymore, 
 but becomes an obsession with people who are regarded as enemies. 
 Interestingly, in giving in to the ego for a long and extended period, it 
 seems the ego is claiming it's place in a more direct way, and the quarrel 
 and obsession