--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > <Snip> And it's all because of the bottom-line marketing > > > approach used by Maharishi since Day One, that TM > > > is "the best." > > > > > > That is *so* much the *foundation* of everything TM > > > that anything that challenges this idea just Cannot > > > Be Allowed. > > > > You are spending a lot of time here describing the symptoms > > of what is essentially a natural phenomenon; the critical > > mass of any entity as it grows, encourages exclusivity. > > And you're being a TM toady. :-) > > > Try working for General Motors and driviong a Ford to work, > > for example. Or put up a sign at work declaring that your > > competitor is just as good. Just The Way Things Work, dude. > > If you want to ascribe nefarious intent to it, fine, but > > you've got countless targets to go after. > > Give me time. :-) Right now I'm focusing on > just one of them. > > Your argument seems to be that there is *not* > nefarious intent involved in these actions. > There clearly is. And you're trying to down- > play it. > > > So the question to you becomes, why are you focused on > > Maharishi and the TMO when you could choose *anybody* or > > *anything*? > > Duh. Could it possibly be because this is a > TM-oriented forum, not one with much interest > in Ford? :-) > > > Why does Barry focus on the TMO and Maharishi, when he > > has entire countries, organizations, corporations, and > > yes, even billions of people to choose from? > > One could as easily ask, "Why does Jim spend > so much time *defending* Maharishi and the TMO > and claiming that the stupid or even illegal > stuff they do is 'no different from what many > people do?'" > > > Looks somewhat obsessive from my perspective. > > As do your compulsive defenses of Maharishi and > the TMO from my perspective. > > Not to mention the substance of them. If the > best you can come up with is the playground > comeback, "Yeah, but they do it, too," you're > on pretty weak ground, dude. > > Isn't the whole premise of Maharishi's vision > that TM is supposed to lead to "enlightened > behavior?" That it's supposed to enable its > long-time followers to act in accord with the > laws of nature and do nothing that is harmful? > > Where's the beef, dude? > > You're trying to say that the claim is real > when the very organization that makes the claim > fails to live up to its predictions. > > It's a *great* deal like saying that you are > able to have perfect knowledge of things while > making dumb and stupid mistakes all the time > about things you *could* have looked up, but > don't because you don't need to. > > But wait...there's a perfect explanation for > that one, too. Just claim that other enlightened > beings in the past made stuff up and claimed that > it was true because they'd "cognized" it. Then > you could use the "Yeah, but they do it, too" > argument again. > > :-)
If Jim is really an example of 'enlightenment' it shows me that 'enlightened' people can still be sycophantic, biased, amoral colossal assholes. He certainly comes off pretty much the opposite of what I'm familiar with and aspire to in Guru Dev.
