--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > Why not just get off the fence? It'll feel like a "new morning".;-)
Haha, I am not 'new morning' (nice guess, I liked new morning). There are reasons I like to stay anonymous. And in this case, it also means to not give away old screen names. But I don't mind if somebody figures out himself. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
