--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <geezerfreak@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > Speak for yourself, please. (I was not required to bow > > > > down when I was initiated, nor was I encouraged to feel > > > > grateful to Guru Dev.) > > > > > > Judy, you are not a TM teacher right? (I honestly > > > can't remember whether or not I've read that you > > > are or not.) > > > > Nope, I'm not. > > > > > I'm thinking not, because part of the initiation instructions > > > are to gesture to the student to kneel down with you. Now it's > > > not like you would refuse to teach the person if they did > > > not, or did not understand your hand gesture. But the intent > > > is clear.....you're inviting the student to bow down with you in > > > gratitude to the "holy tradition." > > > > Yes, I know all this. But it's an *invitation*, > > not a requirement, was my point. > > > > And you were asked to > > > bring fruit flowers and handkerchief for the "ceremony of > > > gratitude to Maharishi's teacher and the tradition." > > > > I was told the ceremony of gratitude to Guru Dev > > was for the teacher's benefit, not mine, and that > > the fruit, flowers, and handkerchief were my > > offering to *my* teacher, not to Guru Dev. > > > > > So not only were you encourage to be grateful to Guru Dev, you were > > > made to actively participate. If you didn't bring the required > > > worship items you would have been asked to go get them and come > > > back, at least when I was teaching. > > > > You're missing my point (willfully, I suspect). > > > > I was responding to this (snipped from your > > post) from boyboy, describing initiation: > > > > if you'd just bow down just a wee bit we can finish this off, > > > and don't you feel greatful to that past master who MMY just > > > adores? > > > > Regardless of what the TM teacher may have had > > in mind, *I* didn't have this in mind, because > > it ain't what I was told. So I didn't bow, and > > I didn't feel grateful. Why should I when I hadn't > > learned anything yet? > > > > That's why I said, "Speak for yourself," you see. > > > > > Your arguments in this thread are quite weak. IMO of course. > > > > You're more than welcome to show *how* they're > > quite weak. One strike so far. > > > > To say that there is no > > > relation of the words to one another in the advanced > > > techniques....you've got to be kidding! > > > > <snicker> I didn't say that. I haven't discussed > > the advanced techniques at all. Two strikes. > > > > Want to try for three? > > > Hey Geez...remember only a few days back > when I predicted that you would be next > on Judy's "Gotta Get" list? > > Was I right, or what?
Yep, no doubt about it. I was just thinking about that after I logged off last night. But shame on me. I've been around here long enough to know better than to get sucked into one of her whirlpool games of points and imaginary "scores". There's plenty of other rational folks around to interact with. Whether I agree with them or not doesn't matter.
