--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there's *no way* people can ever have the > > > > > > > complete picture without really getting into it, > > > > > > > including plenty of experience of the technique. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In between virtually no information about TM's > > > > > > > origins and context and full information, there's > > > > > > > a big swath of *partial* information that is > > > > > > > essentially misleading. If one thinks practice > > > > > > > of the TM technique is highly beneficial for > > > > > > > most people, and conveying full information > > > > > > > isn't a practical option, what does one do? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are confusing the ability to present a > > > > > > more complete picture of the TM practice with the > > > > > > ability to control how people view and react to > > > > > > this information. > > > > > > > > > > Bingo!!! > > > > > > > > > > That's exactly it. As far as I can tell, > > > > > Judy is convinced that there is a "proper" > > > > > or "authoritative" or "correct" "complete > > > > > picture of TM practice." > > > > > > > > > > Coincidentally enough, it happens to be > > > > > her view. > > > > > > > > In stark contrast to the way you feel about > > > > *your* view (both of you), right? > > > > > > This is the thing that Judy has NEVER > > > understood about me. Or, as I interpret > > > his posts here, about Curtis. > > > > > > We really DON'T feel that our view is > > > the "correct" view, or "the truth." It > > > is nothing more than "our view." > > > > So you'd both acknowledge, then, that my view > > might be right? > > Absolutely NOT. > > I do not admit the possibility that any > point of view can be "right." > > What I would acknowledge is that your > point of view is just as valid as mine. > > Can you say the same?
Sure, and mean the same thing by it that you do: "I don't see how anyone with an ounce of integrity can *possibly* be arguing that the TMO does not teach religiously-based ideas." "They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment." And so on.
