I don't see any reason to continue this ping-ponging. You're smart enough to be slippery, and my only wish is that I had the "heart of Judy Stein" to bring forth the issues and show how you're non-responsive in large regard. I don't have that kind of grit, and I've abandoned many a thread here just because the slog was too much for the little profit that might be garnered.
Anyone here think that Pete nailed my ass good and countered my confrontationals with clear answers? I will admit that Pete scrambled a bit and ponied up some nice safe answers, but, clearly, because of my rude tone, well, who would expect someone to come back at me with openness instead of spin? If I had expected suchly, shame on me, eh? I didn't, and I have been rewarded with exactly what I expected from Pete: words from behind a mask. That experiment concluded, with nothing more to gain from poking at him, I don't think I'll be smacking Pete about his SSRS stuff anymore. My profit is a personal "take" that Pete is now a confirmed-by-me true believer and immune to most arguments. If SSRS gets caught with his dong somewhere outside his dhoti, then we might see some actual clockworks whirling inside Pete's head. I await. Does anyone here at FFL think that SSRS is "clean" compared to Maharishi's "dirt?" Any other followers of SSRS here? Seems to me that shit rolls downhill, and SSRS was, by dint of spiritual osmosis, fully educated about processing the punters. To think that SSRS came away from his TMO experiences as more moral than Maharishi -- when virtually every single person around Maharishi was keeping secrets large and small about the various shenanigans -- or that SSRS is/will be less likely to milk the crowd for buckazoids is about as blinkered a view of SSRS as can be. And, isn't that very dynamic the one that saved Maharishi all kinds of negativity -- because, hey, how bad could a guy be if he spent 13 years at the feet of Guru Dev? Sorry, but if SSRS is enlightened and huggywuggyji incarnate, one would have to ask where suchlike was during his stay with Maharishi when so many false-fronts had to be maintained that it is certain he was privy to them and said nothing to rock the boat. Did SSRS get Maharishi's hand-me-down girls? Just askin! Maybe they ate roast beef and boozed it up -- why not speculate this way when money laundering, hush-up extortions, rich-privileges, real-estate flimflams, fudged science reports, and flat out lies were the order of the day? Even if the sexcapades had not come to light, I don't feel asking the question is out of line in the least. Has SSRS ever gone on record excoriating the TMO for its excesses and calling Maharishi to admit and atone? That his followers set up shop in FF to glean the dregs, dross and dopes from the crowd of TM tipping-pointers is a sign of low integrity. SSRS is content to process the lees for faint tracers of money still clinging to the Girish-scoured wallets of the used-to-be-TB-TMers. And as a final note, let me point out that MANY ex-TMers went on to milk crowds of their own gathering, and it turns out that this is not a rare thing at all for morally corrupt persons to do. Think: Bloomfield, Beckley, Grey, et al -- it's not hard to gather a following, so even SSRS's mild achievements in amassing a donor list are hardly a proof of core excellence. Hell, even Vaughn Abrams started a movement when everyone knew he was a flat out criminal -- and that movement still thrives to this day. If SSRS is the real deal, someone should speak up for him regarding the above issues. Personally, I don't care if someone is a true believer, for, hey, I still am in many ways, and I understand the appeal, but to deny "certain facts" is something I can no longer "keep down" when it comes to assessing a guru in this world where almost all of them have clay feet and clogged bank accounts. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutp...@...> wrote: > > Really "Edg (sic.)", you crack me up, man. I'll answer you "questions" below. > > --- On Sun, 8/8/10, Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > > From: Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Why does SSRS think he can get away with marauding > > a congregation? > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 7:32 PM > > Why would anyone give this guy a free > > pass after he mimics Maharishi down to his giggle and then > > comes to the one town where that Maharishi's followers are > > and sets up business there to ride the coattails and grab > > some bucks? > > You got me. Lots of assumptions there that have more to do with you than > SSRS. Honestly, I don't know. You'll have to ask him. But you don't really > want answers though, these are just complaints. You probably have only seen > tapes of SSRS. Really, he's not like Maharishi at all. I used to think that > he was too when I first saw a tape of him. I actually was a little pissed-off > too. But then I met him personally and over the years I've had quite a bit of > interaction with him. In fact, I saw him about two weeks ago. I assure you, > not like MMY at all outside of a white dhoti, long hair, beard and an Indian > accent. > > > > > Why would any "previously true believing in TMer" deign to > > put up with this wannabe? > > Well, maybe the "true believer" is still a true believer and doesn't perceive > him to be a wannabe. I don't agree with your assumptions, obviously. > > > > > Why would this TMO DESERTER think he could wedge himself > > into this community and not come off as a conniving > > spiritual thief? > > The hell if I know! Why do you see him as "wedging himself" into the > Fairfield/TM community? I think he came to Fairfield once a number of years > ago, but he was uncomfortable with being perceived as the very same thing you > are accusing him of. > > > > > Why would anyone in FF after decades of "no results" jump > > ship to another ship made by a cowardly disciple of the > > builder of a just-abandoned ship? > > Are you talking about me or just generic others? I got plenty of results > through TM and the TM-siddhis program. Those results were pure grace and > freed me from any conceptual bondage to any organization or guru. I'm in > bondage to the lotus eyed lord only in all his infinite forms!!!! > > > > > > How stupid does a person have to be to think, "Oh, here's a > > personal guru sure to love me forever and always tell the > > truth and never be smug or snobby or elitist or "too busy > > like Maharishi?" > > You're right, you'd have to be very stupid, spiritually immature, lacking > life discernment or naive to assume a relationship with a Sat guru is all a > cake walk. > > > Sounds someone was on the rebound. > > Oh, you are talking about me! Yes, in 1986 I was on the rebound because my > poor "I" was utterly missing. I had to read a lot of Buddhist literature > to figure out what was going on. Maharishi's concepts were a good basic > context to place a label on what was occurring and to understand certain > dynamics, but I needed more detail. Life was not bliss, but a flat 2 > dimensional skein over pure consciousness. Very odd indeed. > > > > There's your questions, Pete. Let's see you and your > > mostly worthless PhD talk yourself out of this corner you've > > painted yourself into. > > First, I don't have a Ph.D., it's a Psy.D.. Now this corner you refer to > seems to be a construct of your mind, not mine. I don't see a corner. What is > the corner you see? > > > > > > Tell us why you jumped ship? Bet you can't without > > lying or spinning the truth or saying something like "Edg is > > too angry right now for me to share this kind of intimacy." > > You want to share intimacies? I'll have to run that by my wife! I never > jumped ship. I love Maharishi dearly, although I'm a little baffled by the > recent Judy revelations. In fact I was just talking to Maharishi the other > night after I read Judith's book. We had a delightful conversation. He is a > little chagrined by his past behavior and actually needs our deeper > understanding of him and our forgiveness. It's hard to convey the > conversation in detail because it was quite subtle and quite intimate. > Maharishi is an amazing being/soul, whatever you want to call him. Go ahead, > talk to him. He's right there. > > > > And you can't even spell my name correctly. How'd you > > get a PhD with that inability to pick up on a common detail > > that everyone attends? > > Honestly, I misspelled it. I pronounce it as "Edge" so that's how I spelled > it. That's not a real name, is it? > > > > Some psychologist you are to > > lose your cool and label me as always pissed off and come > > down to my level by a juvenile sniping at my name's spelling > > -- if I can put a burr under your saddle so easily, I wonder > > how long you can keep a client from seeing your attachments > > disabling your therapeutic usefulness. > > You should have seen what I initially wrote to you! I was swearing and > calling you every name in the book. I am a tad pitta. But I erased it all and > gave a more civil response as I'm giving you now. Isn't it grand of me? ;-) > > > > > > I'm not always pissed off -- as my posts herein prove -- > > and even when I'm turning out another screed, I do so as a > > writer trying his best to create with aplomb and really put > > some neat flourishes onto my insults. > > Your flourishes ain't that neat IMHO. > > > > Didn't your > > psychological training give you the insight to see the > > difference? I'm doing stand-up, performance art here, > > but if you learned anything in college it should have been > > that "being pissed off" is the death of a truly soaring > > creativity. > > Performance art? Naw, you just seem to be an angry guy frequently. I disagree > about anger. Wonderful creativity, especially comedy, arises from anger. > > > > Best a pissed off person can do is iterate > > a one note song again and again as it attaches to > > issues. Maybe just maybe Michelangelo was pissed when > > he yelled at Moses, "Why don't you speak!" -- but that would > > be about as rare and artistic moment as what ever wuz. > > I amplify my nuances into nose-dives with nine-yards > > aspewin' for the sheer impact of doing so, and once in > > print, I'm done and on to the next moment of my life....I > > un-invest myself of the nuance thereby, see? > > Sounds more like a rationalization to me! > > > > I specialize in being angry in print, but I've not thrown a > > punch in 55 years, never been fired for insulting fellow > > employees, have never taken anyone to small claims court, > > and was in the dome for five years morning and evening > > sessions and if that didn't quell my cantankerousness, then > > why would you glom onto a wannabe technique of the same ilk > > if it has had so little effect -- after 29 years of almost > > perfect dedication to it -- on my personality? > > You got me! Although I'm your big brother because I'm 56, have been doing TM > for 38 years. So, you'll have to defer to me. Are you a Governor? If not, I > won't speak to you! > > > > > Face it: you found yourself spiritually adrift from > > the TMO and you panic-grabbed on to some barnacle encrusted > > flotsam thinking it was dry land. > > If that's your narrative you've cast me in, go for it! > > > How's that working for ya if you're here in a pissing > > contest with the likes of me? > > You're in a pissing contest with me? Why? > > > I'm laughing here -- don't mistake a rude crude gnarly > > guffaw for a growl. > > > > Edg > > Yes, Edg, outstanding in your own field! >
