--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- 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. > > > > However, those people do not present themselves on forums > > dedicated to other techniques as having been practitioners > > and teachers of those techniques in an attempt to give > > themselves credibility when they compare the other techniques > > unfavorably to TM. > > Yes, right, but I am not trying to defend Vaj in case he > lied - he just stated that he learned TM in 1974, which I > think totally possible. But my statement was about the > whole discussion being sort of unnecessary.
People don't like being played for fools. We're pointing out that if he's lying--in particular about having been a TM teacher--he's claiming a credibility to which he isn't entitled. <snip> > And another point is, what I learned during my TM time, TM, > due to its flexibility, as it is stated in some intro > lectures, is even a different technique to different folks, > as it gives different experiences to different people. So > your TM is not my TM or Vajs TM for that matter. This is > the 101 of TM, no two experiences are alike. Right, but I'm not sure that means the basic technique is different in each case. > Furthermore, all of the claims about the uniqueness of TM > and anything Maharishi, which actually forms the basis of > this discussion, is all second hand knowledge I think most who are dubious about Vaj's status as a TM teacher have based that doubt not on issues of TM's uniqueness or what transcending is like--current and former TMers and TM teachers debate both here among themselves all the time--but rather on what Vaj gets wrong about the basic instructions for practice, which is *not* second-hand knowledge. Even those of us who never were teachers have access to the checking notes online (including Vaj, which makes his mistakes doubly odd). You make a good point about second-hand knowledge, but it really isn't the core issue regarding Vaj's TM status. <snip> > > (On the other hand, Vaj and a couple of the other critics > > have a particularly nasty and unpleasant way of voicing > > their negative views that's totally unnecessary, > > including personal insults to TMers, and they come in for > > some well-deserved flak on that account as well.) > > I just stated that I think in his judgement he goes too > far, oveboard IMO, but it doesn't make all he says invalid. Of course not. > > > 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? > > > > Only Robin has done that. > > Yes, I was polemic about Robin. I do not want to insult or > hurt Robin btw., I am just stating something I see as a > contradiction. Which doesn't have much of anything to do with the Vaj situation, as far as I can see. > > > Or did I misread something here? How honest and serious > > > can a person be, making simultaneously such contradictory > > > statements? Talking of integrity. Just sayin' > > > > If you read carefully, they aren't contradictory. > > > > As I see it, Robin had to force himself to give up something > > that had meant the world to him because he found it to be > > *ultimately*--in the full meaning of the term--deceptive. > > Which is a deceptive perception IMO- I'm not arguing for its validity. It seems very strange to me as well, but I don't doubt his sincerity in expressing it. > > Whether or not one is inclined to agree with him, it must > > have been extraordinarily painful, and it's reflected in > > his posts about what was for him a profound loss. > > Yes, this is understood. It is so for many people who were > heavily involved, myself included, but it is the normal > process, many are going through. None of them, however, have had the same huge challenges to deal with. You really can't call what Robin has had to go through a "normal process." > > It's hardly unheard-of after a wrenching divorce for one > > former spouse to speak with great passion about the other > > while acknowledging the impossibility of continuing the > > relationship, for whatever reason (perhaps because the > > other cheated, to load the analogy a bit). > > Sure, that kind of relationship can be compared, and it is > really like a divorce, (I think, as I have never been > divorced). But there is a difference: If I cut a > relationship with my wife, I am not making assumptions > about anybody elses relationship to my wife having to be > equal, otherwise I couldn't take him serious. If I do that > I am a pimp, who is trying to sell my wife. It is these > kind of statements I am arguing about. If somebody says as > if he is betraying Guru Dev, because of whatever he says, > not knowing about Guru Dev from any type of first hand > account etc. I'm not getting what you're after here. Could you give it another shot? > I mean these typical TB statements, which as you rightly > point out, almost don't occure on this forum anymore, and > then unexpected out of the mouth of a person who makes the > most outrageous claims with regard to all knowledge eastern. Again, the bit about Eastern knowledge doesn't work for me, but I'm not sure why that should somehow *negate* his sincerity regarding the TB stuff, given that he's made it very clear that what he's describing is his perspective before he renounced it all. It's still vivid in his mind; you would hardly expect it to be otherwise. > > And who are you, pray tell, to call someone's expression > > of their adoration "overly romantic"? > > Do you know? How doyou know? Do I know what? "Who are you" is just a figure of speech, if that's what you're asking. It's shorthand for, "Why do you think you're in a position to decide what is 'overly' romantic for anyone besides yourself?" > > For your taste, > > perhaps, and you're entitled to that perspective. But it > > isn't right, IMHO, to state it as if it were an > > established fact. Some here have found the posts you're > > referring to deeply moving, even tragic. > > > > As I recall, you've said you never had the experience of > > falling in love with MMY when you were in the TMO. > > 'Falling in love' as in a romantic love. But that doesn't > mean I didn't love him. There is a difference. I very well > experienced his love, at one time a completely impersonal > love, an experience for which I am grateful to this day. > Do we always have to make personal statements to be > believed? No wonder I have to change my handles. I don't remember exactly what you said, but it doesn't have anything to do with believing you or not believing you. I used "falling in love" to mean the kind of intense personal devotion some, including Robin, had for MMY. > No, what I am refering to overly romantic are statements, > where, matter of factly, he says that since Christ there > was nobody like Maharishi. I call this overly romantic, > because he can have only second hand knowledge even of the > existence of Christ, and he just doesn't know anyone else, > any of all the great masters who even lived in the last > century or throughout history. He'll have to justify the validity of that comparison for himself; seems hyperbolic to me as well. But I assume he has some basis for it, and it would be interesting to hear him explain it. I wouldn't want to dismiss it out of hand as "overly" anything until I had a better idea of how he sees it, what he means by it. <snip> > > That's > > fine, not everyone did. But by the same token, you aren't > > in a position to question the sincerity and depth of > > others' feelings about him when you haven't experienced > > what they did. > > > How do you know I did not experience? I'm going by whatever it was you *said* earlier. And you said above that it wasn't "falling in love." My point is that others *did* "fall in love" with MMY, and I don't know why you think you can question that experience-- specifically with MMY--when you haven't had it. > You just don't know. But then I am not going from house to > house with that. And yes, I did also fall in love with > teachers, or saints, even I was about to fall in love with > Ammachi one time, but I knew she was not my master. But > that does not entitly me to make exaggerated and generalizing > statements. It entitles you to express your opinion and personal feelings, whatever they may be, exaggerated and generalizing or not. It doesn't entitle me, even if I'd had my own experiences along those lines, to say you aren't entitled to them. All I'm entitled to say is that they seem exaggerated and generalizing *to me*. > But I do undertsand it is not easy for anybody. So, in no > way, do I attack Robins feelings, but I do attack the > mind-state of TB he formed around it. Robin's mind-state isn't easy to grok, and it's *really* difficult to grok in bits and pieces. Even if you have the stamina to read every word he's written here, there's so *much* of it that it's tough to keep it all in mind. If you don't have a photographic memory, to some extent you're dealing with bits and pieces willy-nilly simply because you can't remember everything on the whole epic canvas he's been laying out (and even that isn't complete). That said, if one has been paying more than superficial attention to what Robin has posted, it seems to me incontrovertible that nobody here has even come close in their own lives to what he's been through. Almost Shakespearean, on a small scale, at least. Not to make a hero of him--more of an antihero, perhaps--it's just that his story is unique. He seems to welcome challenges as long as they're not in-your-face disrespectful. I don't know if he saw your earlier post addressing him directly, but I suspect he'd be responsive if you could get his attention. Such an exchange would be so much more interesting than the current personal snipe-fests!
