--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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?
Threatened?? I said you were being disingenuous. And you were clearly including me. > 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. Raunchy asked where Vaj had taken TTC. She didn't ask for his dome badge. Nor was that "the best [she] could produce intellectually." > > 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. But you're unable to identify or correct the purported misunderstanding. 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. I have only the first advanced technique, so I have no basis for responding to it. But that's a total non sequitur to my point; and in any case, we're talking--or I was talking--about basic TM, not advanced techniques. I could speculate about possible explanations, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. I have no more basis to concede your point than I do to refute it. > > 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. I don't think that's necessarily a slam-dunk, but even if it were, it wouldn't be responsive to *my* point, which is that these questions would still arise: If Vaj *were* a TM teacher, how could he possibly demonstrate such gross misunderstanding of what it involves? > > 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. No, the issue is that he misrepresents--factually-- the instructions for TM. There are teachers here who don't believe the presuppositions either, but that issue doesn't arise with them. It doesn't arise with you, for example, or with Barry. (The issue with you and Barry is why you're defending Vaj when you must know what I'm saying is correct.) If what you say were true, he should be able to start with an accurate account of the instructions (even in his own words) and go on from there. Again, though, whether his claim to have been a TM teacher is true is a secondary issue. It arises *because* of the primary issue. Something has gone cockeyed somewhere for him to insist on such misrepresentations. If he *was* a TM teacher, we have to look for other explanations; simple ignorance of the facts doesn't account for it. Serious memory deficit? Cognitive deficit? The intention to mislead? You tell me. > > 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. This is pretty meaningless polemic, Curtis, and completely unresponsive to anything I've said. Looks downright evasive to me. > > 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. That wasn't a point we raised, nor does it constitute a refutation of our points. Nor is it a point that Vaj used to support what he was saying. > 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. Quote his "clarifications," please. > > 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." Straw man. I never claimed to be enlightened, and I don't believe Raunchy has either.
