--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > I think in your very articulate way you are missing my point. > > My point is more specific and was not meant (despite my > colorful words)to comment on Mark's devotion to Maharishi > or his TM practice. It's been well documented on here of > Mark's disillusionment.
It has not. I'd never heard his name before this latest tempest in a pisspot, and I've been here for years. A search of the archives seems to indicate that there was only one such mention of him with regard to this film, back in a post in February. Before that, any mentions of him were from 2007 or earlier. Are you sure you haven't caught Judy Sensitivity Disease? :-) > Like you said, people can have > doubts or question aspects of the Movement, and I am not > questioning Mark's doing so. He has a right to feel the way > he wants to. Again, the main point is.... > > After seeing the film David Wants to Fly, the interview with > Mark is not flattering of Maharishi...to say the least. Why should it be? > As such, the following quote from Mark's post couldn't > conflict more with the man he described in the interview. > > "In my experience, they still carry a lot of his energy, > as if the atoms and molecules have been entrained in it. > And, of course, in India, they would be holy objects to > be revered. I have kept them very well protected and have > handled them very little over the decades." I see no dichotomy in his either saying this or believing it, *whatever* else he may think of Maharishi. > I guess it's possible to speak ill of someone one minute > and speak so highly of his sandals the next. I don't see why not. His sandals, after all, never banged groupies while claiming to be celibate. Caveat: If they did, any you know intimate details, please don't post them. TMI. :-) > My guess is that what Mark said in the film expresses his > true feelings, but he can't express them here because it > may compromise the value of what he is trying to sell. Your guess is yours, and you are welcome to it. I have no idea what his "true feelings" are, and my bet is that despite your best guess, neither do you. > Maybe Mark can post the interview he had in the film on > here, the questions and answers. Gawd, it's another Dan. Would you like him to post his school records, including any detention halls he had to sit through, too? > If read my main point becomes obvious to anyone who > chooses to be objective and not already biased. I completely disagree, which is why I spoke up. From my point of view, it's YOU who is biased. Furthermore, you are trying your best to push your bias into other people's minds and keep him from being able to sell something that many would consider valuable to the people who might be in the market for it. From my point of view the "main point" of your post was to tarnish his image so that potential buyers would become afraid to buy from him for fear of catching his OTP cooties. I cannot help but notice that in none of your delurking posts have you said anything positive about Maharishi so far. You've only dissed those whose opinions of him you don't seem to agree with. Do you honestly consider that "positivity?" Just sayin'. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I do have compassion for Mark or anyone in financial difficulties. > > > I have been observing the comments on Fairfield Life for many > > > years but until today was not inspired to post one of my own. > > > For some reason it was hard for me to resist pointing out the > > > hypocrisy since I had just seen the film. Perhaps I was a little > > > "colorful" with my words, but they pale in comparison to the words > > > used in the interview. Obviously there are people on here that > > > fit either into the pro-TM camp or the anti-TM camp. I apparently > > > hit a nerve. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the facts > > > and people can spin them the way they want. Interestingly, those > > > who have an issue with my post are not addressing it's main point, > > > rather my mention of being compassionate or acknowledging that > > > many have enjoyed financial success and have attributed it to their > > > TM practice. The main point is not debatable. > > > > The "main point," as you put it, is completely debatable. > > > > You are trying to make the case that a person who has > > mixed feelings about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is somehow > > "off," and should be looked down upon. You made that > > very clear with your "sandals as firewood" comment in > > your first post. > > > > It is NOT a given that anyone who has conflicting > > feelings about Maharishi is a Bad Guy, despite what > > you are trying diligently to infer. One would IMO have > > to be categorically insane to NOT have conflicting > > feelings about Maharishi, if they'd spent any time > > around him. > > > > Now that you've delurked, let's see whether you have > > anything positive to say about the man you're defend- > > ing, or only negative things to say about those who > > honestly deal with their conflicting feelings about > > him. The latter is easy. Many of the posters on this > > forum provide a testament to this. But the former? > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a reason Mark was put in the film and it was > > > > > not to say nice things about Maharishi. I do remember > > > > > a couple things that were said but rather than paraphrase > > > > > it would be best to see the film or to ask your initiate > > > > > directly. > > > > > > > > Whoa! More "TM Compassion." > > > > > > > > Now it's Rick's fault if one of his initiates > > > > is deemed Off The Program by someone with a > > > > stick up their butt. > > > > > > > > K-Y dude. It's not just for sex. Just sayin'. > > > > > > > > > >
