--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptyb...@...> wrote: >Yes Bill. I have noticed in some of Vaj's back and forth posts with me, he >seems to start to try to start a point but doesn't respond to what I further >bring up. Its like he is good at saying what he has to say, but can't really >defend it well.
And vaj, I don't know who your teachers/gurus are, but I am sure they have meaning to you. How would you like it if I called them by their given names instead of the spiritual names they were given? The fact that you don;t think Maharishi was a Maharishi or a Yogi certanly disagrees with many other saints in India who think he was. My point is you are entitled to your opinion and actually I like to try to respect it, but I can't see why you have to keep pushing on this forum. Every time you call him Mahesh instead of Maharishi its like you have to exercise your ego and say to everyone that you opinion of him has to be offered again and again. Can't you give it up already? This was my original point. > > Randy, > > > > You are showing a bit of naiveté about Vaj. > > > > Now that you are feeling nice and relieved about NagaVaj's expansive > views please remember his method of turning around your post to imply > you had a poisoned intent. He demonstrated it just a few posts ago. > > > > Post 220779 @ 01:12 p.m. > > Vaj: > Randy, this is not a Maharishi list, it's for all > sorts of different people, but what most seem > to share in common is that at one time they > had some connection to TM, Mahesh, FF, etc. > > > > I think it's pretty rude of YOU to assume that > all TMers are ignorant. > > > > > > His reply was a typical Vaj snarl. It means you were pressing > uncomfortably close by your query into his real purpose for being here. > > > > His suddenly gracious view misdirected you pretty well to another topic. > He is quite experienced at doing this here on the forum. > > > > > > > > Randy said - > > > > Hey vaj, > > > > Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? > > > > For whatever reason he went by that name (and I have read all the > various stories of whether the name was conferred officially or people > just started calling him that, or whatever the reason,) it was his name. > Its just disrespectful. No matter what what you think of him, it was his > name. By you (and others here) calling him Mahesh, it implies a variety > of things, such as "he wasn't really a maharishi". or "he wasn't really > a saint" or even "I know better who really was" etc. Give it up. > > > > Do you really think he did not help many, many people in the world and > therefore calling him a saint (which is the common expression for any of > these types of people in India) is not justified? > > > > I think many of us here have some issues with some of the things he has > done, or the way he ran his organization etc., but still there is > nothing wrong with showing some respect. > > > > Frankly, it makes you seem arrogant. > > > No matter what you think of him, show some respect > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Meltzer" <rm108@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> So Vaj, if you don't consider him a maharishi or a yogi, what > are > > > >>> you doing on this forum? Do you feel its your job to somehow > > > >>> bring the light of knowledge to all us ignorant Tmers? > > > >> > > > >> Randy, this is not a Maharishi list, it's for all sorts of > different > > > >> people, but what most seem to share in common is that at one time > > > >> they had some connection to TM, Mahesh, FF, etc. > > > >> > > > >> I think it's pretty rude of YOU to assume that all TMers are > > > >> ignorant. > > > >> > > > > What I meant by "us ignorant TMers" is the fact that your posts > > > > mostly seem to be saying that you have more knowledge and > experience > > > > that most TMers, or at least the ones here. And to say this list > is > > > > not a Maharishi list is ridiculous. Sure its not an oficial TMo > > > > list, but the reason pretty much everyone is on here is because > they > > > > have had, or do have a connection to TM > > > > > > I've found the type of people who learned TM in the past (and I'm > sure > > > the same now) to be very learned in many different fields, and many > > > went on to profoundly represent any number of paths and > realizations. > > > I think this is true of many spiritual trips, they tend to draw a > very > > > high caliber person IMO. > > > > > > You should not get so up tight when we ruthlessly look into why > > > someone has a name they have or whatever it is. We owe it to history > > > to try to arrive at definite, honest answers for these questions. > > > There's a reason these answers have been hidden. Being happy with > just > > > an advertising buy-line veneer is insane. The truth is often > stranger, > > > but definitely better than fiction. We should not settle for less, > > > whether it's the Maharishi or Swami Rama boning their students or > > > Swami Muktananda experimenting on 16 year olds or some Buddhist > > > nutcase pumping Sarin gas into the Tokyo subways or some priest > anally > > > raping young boys or Chogyam Trungpa drunk out of mind extolling > > > dharma. Veritas liberat. > > > > > > At the same time, it's also worth contemplating the bizarre paradox > > > these things represent and the good some of these folks were to able > > > catalyze. What's up with THAT? Who are the divine madmen and who are > > > the merely mad and avaricious? These are all great questions. > > > > > I agree, great questions? > > >
