--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > <snip> > > The lack of interest in Vaj's perspective I see here, > > the polemic gamesmanship used to try to discredit him > > personally rather than address the points he has > > brought up, reveals an anti-intellectual bias that > > reminds me of a political machine. I know that he > > returns fire and I'm sure I'll be deluged with his > > many online sins for defending him here. > > > > But here you have a guy who is waaaay into meditation > > and is obviously very sharp, and I don't sense a shred > > of curiosity about his detailed perspective among the > > people here who claim to be waaaaay into self > > development? BIG WTF? > > > > Did everyone miss the "compare and contrast" angle in > > your education? > > > > An intellectual resource is being squandered on both > > sides here. On a forum with people who have done TM > > for decades, and some who have done it for 15 years > > or more and then went into other techniques to compare > > TM to, the best we can produce intellectually is: > > > > Show me you dome badge buddy!? > > It's disingenuous for you to lump me and raunchydog > and ed11 in with Willytex, Curtis.
Let's see, I was responding to Raunchy and Dicky boy directly, why would you feel threatened? The three of us > are making valid points about Vaj's "compare and > contrast" performance here. We're not demanding he > show his dome badge Both DICK and Raunchy did and that was how I was responding to. . > > We *are* genuinely and legitimately curious as to > how he could ever have been a TM teacher as he > claims, and yet come up with the kind of flat-out > nonsense that has appeared in his current spate of > posts. You didn't understand what I wrote. OK. > > You can't do a valid compare-and-contrast if you > can't give an accurate account of one of the things > you're comparing and contrasting. It doesn't matter > how many other things you know about or how > extensive your knowledge of them is. No one responded to my question about thinking the mantra from a body part as a "lack of innocence" question. > > To go back to Barry's analogy with crayons, if > somebody's insisting that crayons are an inferior > medium because all they can produce is black and > white, the very first question that comes to mind > is, Have you ever *used* crayons? Do you even know > what they are? The idea that a mind like Vaj's didn't have sufficient exposure to TM teaching to be this devoted to TM Websites is absurd. I'll go further, the kind of detailed mind Vaj exhibits, the thoroughness he approaches every topic,indicates that if he was into TM, he took it to its limit to me. > > And if he then claims he used to *teach* crayon > drawing, well, the jaw just drops. *Of course* we'd > ask him to come up with some kind of varification > of his having been a crayon drawing teacher. He doesn't sound like a TM teacher because he doesn't believe any of the presuppositions of TM. Unlike me, he had gone into this from a completely different angle with he prefers. > > How can I be interested in the perspective of > someone who thinks crayons produce only black and > white, other than as an example of some kind of > cognitive pathology? Judy you are choosing your own entertainment here as am I. My criticism is bogus from the big picture. But I believe that the people who are representing TM and Maharishi are not sounding like the foremost scientists of consciousness. I think you sound like a political party who must crush any opposition at any cost. I am disappointed that this is what we find so many years after I dropped out. If what Maharishi claimed was true, you should be spinning Vaj's objections like the Harlem Globe Totters. Instead I see bullshit. > > Curtis, it's *you* who isn't addressing the points > that have been raised. Sure I did. Thinking your mantra from a body part is not "innocent". Neither of you responded to this valid point. raunchydog and I have both > explicitly addressed the things Vaj has said about > TM that simply aren't accurate. He hasn't responded > with any kind of clarification, just ad hominem. We differ here. > > He's discredited *himself* personally. And you're > discrediting yourself by defending him and > attacking us. Yeah, this is pretty much what I expected from the "enlightened." >
