"She actually seems to believe that I still read her posts." Dude, she doesn't "seem to believe" anything. You clearly and unequivocally still read her posts - -e-v-e-r-y w-o-r-d. You are addicted to fighting with her. Other than that, the elephant sure must have had a full meal yesterday, cause the place sure stinks like dung (not incense).
Spiritual experience has nothing to do with how many different meditations you have taught, or practiced. I know people who are hundreds of times more spiritually accomplished than you, and they have *never* meditated. You sound pretty insecure throughout your rant. Give it a rest. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 2011, at 7:04 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > Your turn. What movies did you loathe this year? > > > > My problem is 1) I watch so many damn movies, I don't > > often remember the titles of the good ones...fuggedabout > > the BAD ones... > > I completely understand. When I wrote my thread-starter > yesterday, I actually had to scan through my list of > movies that I'd downloaded and seen this past year to > remember the real stinkers. If I hadn't done that, I > wouldn't have been able to remember them, because they > were blessedly gone from my memory. :-) > > > Eat, Pray, Love was a bad one, esp. given all the hype. > > Religious narcissism at it's best. > > Or worst. Self-indulgence and self-importance and > "It's all about me" squared. > > > I was a fan of Sex and the City when it was on TV. I > > tried really, really hard to love Sex and the City 2, > > but instead I just loved watching how bad it was and > > reveling in that badness. > > The thing is, it wasn't just a bad movie. Its whole > concept was to present four of the most unattractive > women in the history of TV or movies *as if they not > only were attractive but worthy of envy and to be > admired*. The movie so completely missed the point > of what it is to be human that it was scary. > > > Legion truly sucked. > > Yup. Blotted that one out, so much so that I forgot > to mention it. :-) > > > Inception tried so, so hard, but even Cialis couldn't > > have helped this movie get it up. Great effects, but > > in the end it was a supernatural thriller geared towards > > a Megachurch Christian videogamer level of religious > > imagination. If you still have repressed The Matrix > > fantasy material in your unconscious that makes you > > wonder if you're in a dream within a dream, that could > > end all any time (but actually keeps going on and on > > and on), then you'll probably like this movie. Likewise, > > Ekhart Tolle fans will probably like it's depth. > > I completely agree. I have actually liked Nolan's > movies in the past, but "Inception" was just mediocrity > personified. Like you, the fact that anyone saw anything > profound in it amazes me as much as anyone seeing pro- > fundity in Maharishi's endlessly-recycled intro lectures. > > > Judy Review: I've never watched a SAW movie yet, and I > > could care less they put one out in 3D. I'm certain > > enuff it sucked, that I didn't bother to watch it, > > even in 2D, even without Mel Gibson. > > This quip, however, is why I'm really replying. It > nails the essence of our resident quester-after- > authority almost as well as azgrey's brilliant "So > little to say and so many posts used proving it." > > Besides, we all know that, having hoist herself on > her own petard of not being able to control herself, > Judy is sitting out there reading every word of > every post, fuming and spitting that she can't leap > in and "correct" them. Well, here's one that she'll > have to wait until 12:01 Central time Friday to > "correct." :-) > > I think it's about time that someone pointed out > that the person on this forum who most consistently > sets herself up as an "authority" has none. It can > be accurately stated that Judy Stein possibly *has > the least actual spiritual experience of anyone on > this forum*. > > Think about it. Pretty much the *only* things she's > ever done in terms of actual hands-on spiritual > practice is to meditate regularly and watch a few > videotapes. She's spent (as far as I can tell) only > one short period of her life "rounding." She never > became a TM teacher, and most tellingly, the person > who considers herself qualified to speak authori- > tatively about Maharishi and "what he taught" never > was even in the same room with him. She's never been > (again, as far as I can tell) in the same room with > ANY guru or spiritual teacher. Her relationship *with* > spiritual teachers is exactly the same as what you > suggest about her relationship with the movies she > offers opinions on, never having seen them. It's all > fantasy, all in her head. And the clincher is that > she feels that that is *enough* to pose as an > authority about them. > > I'm really not sure which came first, the choice of > profession as a petty tyrant who gets to impose her > opinions on others (that is, being an editor) or the > desire to impose her laughable "authority" on others, > which led her to become an editor. It's a real chicken- > and-egg situation. But again, I think it's worth > pointing out that *even within the realm of her > supposed experience* (editing, and the supposed > mastery of words), she's a really shitty writer. What > else can you call someone who has to spend a quarter > of her posts every week trying to claim that others > "misunderstood" or "misrepresented" what she wrote > and having to re-write it? A real writer just writes > and allows the writing to stand on its own, like > azgrey did. His brilliant insight stands on its own, > accurate and self-contained. Judy would require 10 > posts and double that number of insults to not > make her point even a fraction as well. > > She actually seems to believe that I still read her > posts. I can tell that from the first few lines of > her posts that I see in Message View, which is all > that I ever read. There is no POINT in reading more. > She's never going to say anything worth reading; > end of story. And the *reason* for this is that she > doesn't have the breadth of experience necessary > to have *earned* the aura of "authority" she likes > to portray herself as having. She's an armchair > seeker who has never done anything more than read > *about* spirituality or watch it on TV. And it's > the same with the other things she poses as an > authority about after reading some article about > them. One wonders at times whether the professional > editor who likes to throw around the word "phony" > has ever looked that word up. > > There is no there there. "Authority" -- whether in > a spiritual context or a mundane one, is conferred > on someone based on what they've DONE, not what they > have read about other people doing. Judy has never > understood this. And it looks as if she never will. > Why should anyone waste time reading the procla- > mations of someone parroting experiences that are > at best second-hand when they could be off having > real experiences of their own, and learning about > things first-hand? > > Authority must be earned. It is conferred on the > basis of having gotten off your butt and DONE some- > thing. Judy Stein has never in her life done anything > to deserve the authority she postures as having. End > of story. >
