Hmm, since there are so many TM teachers on this board, nay even 'enlightened' ones, of what importance is it, that Vaj did TM or not? We have enough information about TM right? There are, just to cite an example many TMers here, who will swear that TM is the best spiritual technique, without ever trying all the others, so judging other techniques on the basis of what one has studied oneself, is at least not such an unusual business it seems.
I say all this without actually *knowing* Vaj's involvement or non-involvement in TM. I never thought he was a TM teacher, and, in the past, have myself expressed doubt about his involvement. And yet, that does not mean that all he says is invalid, in fact I find several points -on TM - where I agree with him, and he exhibits knowledge, obviously others are missing out. Not the type of internal knowledge about TM, that initiators have, but knowledge about other things, that do bring the TM experience into a certain perspective which I find valid. And he is actually the only one who brings in this perspective, so it is rare, crucial. I do not join his overall judgement on TM or all things Maharishi, as I think he is going clearly overboard here, but it is a matter of judgement, where I see the whole thing in an overall positive light - with all criticsim, and he chooses to see it negative - but so what? Do not other's here adore and eulogize TM and Maharishi in an overly romantic way, while stating simultaneausly it is the most deceptive way, the devil invented? Or did I misread something here? How honest and serious can a person be, making simultaneously such contradictory statements? Talking of integrity. Just sayin' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > This message following from the archive seems to be a reference to Vaj's TM > knowledge. As I have been on the forum for only less than a year, this is > before my knowledge of who what writing what about whom. So doubt about Vaj > seems to go back some time, more than half a decade. > > I have removed some personal references from the message (indicated by *). It > seems as if one of the posters also does not appear as there are three levels > of posts in the message, but only two posters mentioned. I do not know who > they are. > > -------------------------------- > [FairfieldLife] Re: The Kaplan Money > > t3rinity > Tue, 17 May 2005 07:14:40 -0700 > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > TM is just meditation with supports. The support is the mantra. > > > Supports are like training wheels. Eventually you drop the > > training > > > wheels.>> > > > > > > You really don't seem to have ever learned TM. It is as if you > never learned it. I'm not being sarcastic. Any TM'r reading your posts, > it is as if you really don't understand the technique. > > How would he? If he ever learned TM he must have forgotten it > completely. > > * > > Not, that it is wrong to have many interests. But I wonder, how you > can be a Nathist, as he claims he is initiated into the Nath order, > and a Shri Vidhya practitionar, of the Shankara order, and a Tibetan > Buddhist at the same time. That's just like if you are a Mormon, a > Catholic priest, and a Babtist simultaneausly, while just 2-3 years > ago he was a Freemasonic brother. > > I think it's relatively easy to just gather info's from the net, read > some books, watch some discussion. It's quite another thing to follow > a path committedly over decades. > > So I think Vaj aka Vajranatha aka * aka * just wants to > show up. > > ----------------------------- > > TM involves some cultish jargon, and anyone involved therein tends to pick > that up - it is hard to disguise habit. Vaj never seems to me to 'sound' or > 'feel' like a TMer. That is not a proof, but his explanation that he just > does not want to use those expressions seems a bit lame, since he does not > seem to be able to translate them to different language in a way that they > are still recognisable. For example in the 1960s Maharishi said TM 'lures the > mind'. That is not common today in TM-speak, but the intent is recognisable > as a feature of how TM works. > > He seems well versed in other things not related directly to TM; I think he > would have a stronger presence here if he just owned up that he was not a > teacher, and maybe not even a TM meditator, and played to his strong points. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > It is entirely possible that Vaj could have gleaned or picked up > > > particulars about TM and Robin's group from reading materials or > > > from discussing these particulars with other people. And in > > > light what he mentioned a short time ago, it may be that this > > > the case. > > > > > > What I am saying is that Vaj, has for the most part come across > > > as credible to me on the topics in which he opines, including TM > > > and the Vedic Tradition. > > > > Really? You believe he's always described the instructions > > for TM accurately? > > > > > Yes, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. > > > For me that has both plusses and minuses, but mostly plusses, > > > (by a long shot). > > > > > > There is also the burden of proof each of us might require, i.e. > > > "preponderance of evidence" (civil case), and "beyond a reasonable > > > doubt" (criminal case). > > > > > > As to the accusation that Vaj was not a participant of the TMO, > > > you may inclined to draw a conclusion based on a preponderance > > > of evidence, whereas I would want more substantial evidence > > >(beyond a reasonable doubt). > > > > You've switched conclusions. Your original post said there > > was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he *was* a TMO > > participant. > > > > In any case, my conclusion is based on *absence* of any > > evidence for that premise; plus in one case *negative* > > evidence: By me, the inability to correctly cite the > > instructions for the practice of TM is evidence beyond a > > reasonable doubt that Vaj was never a TM teacher. > > > > > But I believe Vaj himself has helped clear up that mystery. > > > > Oh? And how has he managed to do that, if I may ask? > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If I were on a jury, and had to make a determination based > > > > > on the evidence I have heard over my time on FFL, I would > > > > > say that IMO the evidence is irrefutable (or at least > > > > > beyond a reasonable doubt) that Vaj was a very active > > > > > participant in the TMO. > > > > > > > > What evidence have you seen that Vaj has TMO-related > > > > knowledge and understanding that he could *not* have > > > > obtained except by being an active participant in the > > > > TMO? Is there anything he's said that could not be > > > > accounted for by his having read TMO-related materials > > > > and/or spoken to people who *were* active in the TMO? > > > > > > > > Those testifying in court on Vaj's behalf would surely > > > > be cross-examined to that effect, and if they couldn't > > > > come up with anything solid, the prosecution would use > > > > that failure to impeach their testimony to the jury. > > > > > > > > > To me the only evidience, (or lack of evidence in this case) > > > > > is that no one, here at least, seems to have personal > > > > > knowledge of his participation. But no one here, except on > > > > > one ocassion, (Jim Flanagan), has ever brought this up. > > > > > > > > How could anyone have personal knowledge of his > > > > participation if he doesn't use his real name and won't > > > > even cite any of the facts of that participation? He's > > > > been asked over and over and over again for such facts, > > > > like the name of his initiator or the date and location > > > > of his TTC, and he refuses to respond, even though > > > > those facts wouldn't identify him in and of themselves. > > > > > > > > > And based on what I have heard here, Vaj also has an intimate > > > > > understanding of Robin's past stint as being the leader of > > > > > his own spirtitual group. > > > > > > > > Again, what understanding of Robin's past has Vaj > > > > demonstrated that he could *not* have obtained except > > > > by active participation in the TMO? What does Vaj know > > > > about Robin that he could not have learned from reading > > > > pertinent material (such as Robin's books, which contain > > > > his own detailed accounts of that period) and/or talked > > > > with people who were Robin's followers? Robin's past > > > > history is well documented, and Vaj has let it be known > > > > that he has collected quite an archive of material > > > > relating to Robin. And it would hardly be a surprise > > > > if some of Robin's past followers were eager to spill > > > > beans into a sympathetic ear about that ultimately > > > > disastrous experience. > > > > > > > > > So, the accusations listed below don't realy strike a chord > > > > > with me. Vaj is a pesky adversary, and I have found his > > > > > arguments to be pretty tight. > > > > > > > > You're aware that a number of others here have said > > > > very similar things about the way Vaj responds to > > > > challenge or inquiry, right? The items in Robin's > > > > list aren't just his own viewpoint by any means. > > > > > > > > You're aware that at least seven former or current TM > > > > teachers on this forum have found some of the things > > > > he's said about TM practice to be factually incorrect, > > > > right? Basic facts, such as the claim that we're > > > > instructed to wait for the mantra to show up rather > > > > than introducing it. > > > > > > > > > I don't find instances of the outright lies of which he is often > > > > > accused. > > > > > > > > Highly selective reading, seems to me. > > > > > > > > > The most egregious behavior of Vaj's I have found so far was > > > > > when he intentially over posted some time back to foul up > > > > > the system, just to try to test the moderators post counting, > > > > > (or something along these lines). I think Alex got pretty > > > > > pissed off, and I didn't blame him. > > > > > > > > > > And quite honestly, I thought that indicated a real lack of > > > > > integrity on Vaj's part. > > > > > > > > To refresh your memory, I had accidentally made three > > > > posts on a Thursday evening, thinking it was Friday, > > > > when I had already used up my 50. I immediately deleted > > > > them and emailed Alex telling him what had happened. He > > > > and Rick decided not to ban me for a week because it had > > > > been an accident. That apparently infuriated Vaj, who > > > > proceeded to *deliberately* overpost and then went back > > > > and deleted a bunch of his past posts for that week to > > > > compensate, daring the moderators to make him take a week > > > > off. And yes, Alex was furious. > > > > > > > > And how about when Vaj suggested that Robin was breaking > > > > Yahoo rules by using the email address no_reply@? > > > > That *could* be explained by simple ignorance (although > > > > it's hard to imagine, given how long he's been conversing > > > > here with the many folks to whom Yahoo has *assigned* that > > > > dummy email address because they don't want to use their > > > > real one), except that when informed of Yahoo's routine > > > > use of the dummy address, Vaj claimed he already knew > > > > about it. > > > > > > > > Note one other point: Vaj continually accuses his > > > > adversaries here of lying, but he almost never cites any > > > > specific lies that they've allegedly told. But Vaj's > > > > adversaries have cited chapter and verse concerning Vaj's > > > > lies. > > > > > > > > Consider one additional point: Robin has every reason to > > > > conceal the facts of his past with the TMO, but he has > > > > been remarkably open about them and willingly takes > > > > responsibility for his past behavior. Contrast that with > > > > Vaj's determined reticence about *his* alleged TMO past. > > > > > > > > > , --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You really missed the mark again Robin - you're not even > > > > > > close to the truth. What's up with that? How can you so > > > > > > consistently hit the mark. Do you have a straw man fetish > > > > > > or something? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 18, 2011, at 12:32 AM, maskedzebra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. You never seek to address the essence of what > > > > > > > someone says in a given post. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. You selectively chose segments from a post which > > > > > > > you choose to comment on, and those segments usually > > > > > > > do not bear upon the fundamental point or theme of > > > > > > > the post. You ignore the most important ideas of a > > > > > > > given post. You are only interested in using certain > > > > > > > aspects of the post to serve your own strange and > > > > > > > essentially negative agenda. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. You have no motivation that is based upon wanting > > > > > > > learn something at FFL, or to clarify some idea, or to > > > > > > > argue with some expectation of resolving an issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. You have no feel for the truth of anything you say; > > > > > > > you are not governed by fact or honesty in your posts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. You are an archivist who then appropriates the > > > > > > > material and information you collect into the claim > > > > > > > that you have lived out these experiences. This is > > > > > > > classic fantasizing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. You don't know how to proceed such as to fulfill > > > > > > > your own agenda, because you are essentially a confused > > > > > > > and disoriented person when it comes to knowing what > > > > > > > you are up to when you post at FFL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. You don't know where you are at any moment in your > > > > > > > interaction with various persons here at FFL. There is > > > > > > > no intellectual or moral or even psychological coherence > > > > > > > in what you write such that the reader can estimate > > > > > > > where you are going with your posts. You don't know what > > > > > > > you are doing at FFL, Vaj: FFL is like some kind of > > > > > > > dream you are having and inside that dream you are > > > > > > > behaving bizarrely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8. "Who the hell is Tim Tebow?"�direct quote from Vaj > > > > > > > two weeks ago. Now it's: "I knew who he was; I just > > > > > > > wasn't that interested". Do you ever admit to yourself, > > > > > > > not to say others, when you deliberately make what is > > > > > > > unreal for you into something that then becomes part of > > > > > > > your personal history, as if you have passed through the > > > > > > > experience; meanwhile what you say you have lived through > > > > > > > remains separate from you entirely. It is never something > > > > > > > that is inside of you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9. You are in some kind of disassociated state, Vaj: > > > > > > > because you don't ever connect the dots. You don't know > > > > > > > where you are going; you don't know what you are doing; > > > > > > > you have no contact with reality. You are in a very bad > > > > > > > state indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10. You lie�and evidently it has reached the point where > > > > > > > even you don't know the difference between saying > > > > > > > something that is not true and saying something that is > > > > > > > true. The line between what is a lie and what is the > > > > > > > truth has become so blurred that you don't even know what > > > > > > > it is like to know that something really happened to you > > > > > > > as opposed to something that never happened to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11. You have no idea of the common denominator of > > > > > > > experience of most everyone on this forum. > > > > > > > > > >
