So, it's all about Raunchydog, Judy, ed11, Nabby, Off, and now empty_bill.
TurquoiseB wrote: > Actually, the title of this little rant should > be "See Raunchydog, Judy, ed11, Nabby, Off, and > now empty_bill Run." See them chase the dreaded > heretic up the hill, shouting "Anti-TMer! Anti- > TMer!" at the top of their voices. > > And why? > > Because I posted a parody of what Raunchydog > actually *said*, putting it into perspective. > She "went off" on how TM was the only tech- > nique she ever needed to learn, and that any > suggestion that she should ever learn another > technique was offensive to her. So I rewrote > what she had said as if she had settled for > the first book she had ever read, and thought > that it was the only book she ever *needed* > to read, ever in her whole life. > > And then I just sat back and waited. She and > Judy did the rest. I merely pointed out that > their reactions -- and the "TM supremacy meme" > that is at the basis of those reactions -- to > you, Mike, so that you could see what you're > going to have to deal with when/if you go > to Fairfield. > > AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE KNOWS > THAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS TRUE. THEY > HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN OVER AND OVER. > > You *will* be thrown out of MUM if you persist > in thinking that you have the right to practice > a technique of meditation you think is "as > good as" or better than TM. So no one on this > forum has even bothered to *challenge* that, > or deal with it at all. > > Instead, they went on a "Shoot the messenger" > kick. And I think that everyone here knows why. > It has to do with my choice of *which* book I > suggested that Raunchydog had chosen to "settle > for" as The Only Book She Ever Needed To Read. > I picked the name "Dick and Jane Meet Lassie." > > THAT is why these folks are in full "Gotta get > the anti-TMer" mode, and have gone a little crazy > behind it. They feel that they have to lash out > at the person who implied that TM was on the same > level as a first-year reading primer, and that > by settling for that technique to the point of > never being willing to try another, they had > effectively settled for having read only one book > in their entire lives, and being content with that. > > But in my honest opinion, that's all true. Mike, > as I have said here many, many times, I am *NOT* > "anti-TM." I think that TM -- TM alone, with none > its expensive "add on products" -- is a very *good* > beginner's technique of meditation. > > In the larger catalog of meditation techniques, > that is *exactly* what it is. Of the 50+ techniques > I have been taught over the years, I would say that > at least 4 others were essentially the *same* as TM, > two of them using the same mantras, all of them > using the same basic instructions. The *only* differ- > ences between the techniques were the methods in > which they were taught, and the fact that the other > four techniques were taught to me for free. > > But that was five techniques out of 50. The *rest* > had completely different philosophies "underneath" > them, and were for different purposes and were aimed > at seekers of different predilections. The thing > that the other spiritual traditions who taught me > these other techniques had going for them was a > "diversity of product line." They weren't locked > into Maharishi's "the only thing I've got to sell > is TM so I've got to claim that it's 'the best'" > approach (at least that was his approach until he > began to invent newer and more expensive add-on > products to sell). Each of these other traditions > had *dozens* of techniques to teach, to seekers at > different levels of experience, and according to > their predilections. > > For the record, because this "Shoot the messenger" > "pile on" nonsense is not going to stop, I am *NOT* > anti-TM. As I've said many times, I think TM is an > excellent beginner's technique of meditation. And I'm > not even "anti" someone like Raunchydog or Judy being > so happy with it (or so incurious) as to never want > to try a second technique of meditation, ever in their > lives. > > The only thing I'm "anti" is the continued, anti- > intellectual insistence, even in people who should know > better, that TM is "the best" technique of meditation > in the world. > > It's *fine* to say that TM is a great technique of medi- > tation. It's *fine* to say that it's such a great tech- > nique that -- for you -- there is no need to ever try > another. What it's NOT fine to say is "TM is the best" > *if you have never tried any other techniques of medi- > tation after learning TM, or none others, period*. > > If that is your situation -- and it *IS*, as far as I > can tell, Raunchydog's, Judy's, and ed11's situation -- > then you have *no basis* from which to make that > declaration of "bestness." > > Interestingly enough, this was the basis of the first > time Judy went crazy and went into "Gotta get Barry" > mode back in 1994. I called her on making this same > "TM is the best" statement back on alt.meditation. > transcendental. (At least this is the first interaction > I could find last night, when contrary to what Judy > claims the Google search engine was working *just fine*.) > > I called her on repeating ad nauseum her "the best" > claim, she wrote to me in email (pretending that it was > because she wanted to discuss 'details of the practice' > that weren't appropriate to being posted, which she > *never* discussed), and then I asked whether I could > repost some of the things she had said in that email > to the group, to further the discussion. > > She went crazy. She's been crazy ever since. She has > been calling me an "anti-TMer" ever since. > > I'm *sure* she'd like to portray the interaction some > other way, but I just went back and re-read the posts > last night, and that's how it went down. > > Then, as now, the two things that made her go crazy > are the same things that are making her and the other > "pro-TMers" go crazy today. The first is being called > on making a claim that they have no rational basis for > making, not having practiced all the other techniques > they claim TM is "better" than. The second is *realizing* > that to some extent the "Dick and Jane Meet Lassie" > analogy is *correct*, and that they have been repeating > the "TM is the best" meme all these decades after having > practiced only TM (after having read only one beginner's > reading primer, "Dick and Jane Meet Lassie). > > That's the situation as I see it. Anyone who cares > enough to have read this far can make their own deter- > mination. Believe whatever you want. > > All I'm saying is that on this forum, when a *bunch* of > people get crazy behind "Gotta get the 'anti-TMer'" > mode, the reason can *always* be traced back to someone > having pointed out the basic stupidity of the "TM is the > best" meme. They react to that *every time* with cries > of "anti-TMer." > > Personally, I think it's good that they're reacting this > way, because for the next few days YOU are going to see > *exactly* how a "TM community" reacts to having one of > its sacred cows skewered. They react with anger and with > name-calling. Next will come lies. (Actually, the lies > have already started; ed11 claimed that I've never been > to Fairfield, which isn't true. Next will come Nabby > making up some new claim about my nefarious past.) > > Mike, these are the SAME tactics they will use against > YOU if you move to Fairfield, enroll in the university, > and have the audacity to say that you think that any > other technique of meditation is on a par with TM or > is (God forbid!) superior to it. This is how they will > treat YOU. They will come after you like villagers with > torches after Doc Frankenstein's monster, shouting > "Anti-TMer! Anti-TMer!" > > Watch and learn, Mike. This is your future, should > you enroll at MUM and choose to retain your ability > to think for yourself. >
