Today, I feel like I got a clearer picture of Vaj's affiliation with the TMO. And I stated what that conclusion is a few posts back. As far as proof, I have nothing more or less than anyone else here. My reference was just to Vaj's desire to maintain the confidentiality of information that was once public and which he now wishes to keep private. Information pertaining to identity, and nothing else.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > --- 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? > > > > I am not able to muster any interest in the effortless of the > > technique debate. I am just not interested because I guess > > to me the terms have some leeway in what they can mean. So, > > I have never even much read the exchanges. > > But see, that's the basis on which TM teachers here doubt > he was ever a TM teacher himself. It isn't just a matter > of terms with leeway or having to do with effortlessness; > it's very specific points about the instruction, such as > that TMers are instructed always to wait for the mantra > instead of introducing it. That's not the case, as you > know. > > There was one fascinating sequence of posts on which he > got totally tangled up on that point and ended up > contradicting himself. In trying to wiggle out of his > error, he also misrepresented the checking notes, > quoting one sentence that's only used in one particular > circumstance and pretending it applied to the practice > overall. It was a pretty spectacular flame-out. He > wouldn't have passed checker training, let alone TTC. > > You participated in that discussion, BTW. Here's what > you had to say about Vaj back then (#274447): > > "The thing I have noticed about Vaj, is that sometimes the > follow up is absent when contradicting evidence is presented > which goes against a postion he is championing. I have > also noticed that under similiar circumstances, as a fall > back, he will sometimes reply, "you just aren't ready for > the truth". So essentially he is undefeated in any arguments > in which he participates. An unblemished record." > > <snip> > > What I mean't to say was, that I believe you are willing to > > judge that he was not a TMer based on a "preponderance of > > evidence", (lower threshold), and I was holding out for > > evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", which for me would have > > been that no one knew him. And I don't wish to go any > > further along this line of thought because I don't wish to > > breach any confidentiality. > > Are you saying you have confidential information from > someone that he *was* a TMer? > > > > 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? > > > > I believe he indicated the extent of his involvement in TM, > > which, from the impression I got, was short of being an > > instructor. It sounds like he passed on the other > > opportunities. What impression did you get? > > He didn't mention anything about having been a teacher in > that response, but he's made the claim elsewhere. You > weren't aware of that? >
