--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On Jan 17, 2012, at 2:25 AM, maskedzebra wrote:
RESPONSE: No, Vaj, the only possible response here should have been: "Robin, you are wrong. I *have* met you. I know you. And you will have to take back these words." Vaj: That fact should be already obvious, at least it is to several here. It doesn't matter to me if you take them back or not. RESPONSE 2: No, no, no, Vaj: for what you say here to be true must mean that everyone but three persons at FFL are deliberately and wilfully refusing to grant you the chance to prove that you are not lying. In other words, only these three persons are sufficiently non-biased and impartial to be able to apprehendboth intuitively and objectivelythat you are in fact telling the truth about TM, Maharishi, me, and those seminars. The rest of the FFL posters have some need *not* to believe you. Now what could that be? Not one poster at FFLand there must have been hundreds and hundreds since the beginning of FFLhas ever conceived of the scenario whereby people at FFL would be scrupulous and skeptical about anyone claiming to be a TM meditator, claiming to be a TM initiator, claiming to know Maharishi personally. The issue simply would never come up. After all, being initiated into TM is not some Secret Society with elaborate handshakes and a Skull & Bones harrowing initiation [where you have to give a complete account of your sexual history]. Your comments about TMand everyone here has commented on TM: there must be 5,000 such comments that have been made since Rick first created this forum*drew attention to themselves", as they almost invariably exhibited the evidence of someone who had never done TM, let alone taught TM. Let us say that all the posters at FFL not only attended a specific play on Broadway but eventually auditioned for that play and acted in it. FFL, in this analogy, was formed to essentially talk about that play and what it was like not just to see it, but to be in itand even to meet the playwright. Along comes someone who professes to have seen the production of the play, acted in that production, and yes, known the author personally. But in everything he says he conspicuously reveals that he could not have seen the play, because it was not mounted the way he says it was; he has the plot all wrong; and he discusses the leading actors in a way that is separated from the experience of having seen these actors live and on stage. Now three persons, for reasons only known to them, seek to burnish the credentials of this controversial drama critic who has been highly critical of this production, but who suspiciously appears never to have seen the production. Evidently the supporters of this critic (who is disbelieved by the majority of posters at FFL as having seen the production, let alone acted in the Broadway company associated with the play) find him useful in their determination to pan the artistic integrity of the playeven as there are other critics of the play who believe the play to have some severe even fatal weaknessesbut who can examine the play's flaws without necessarily suspending their critical faculties when it comes to believing in the bona fides of this singular critic. You are referring here to those three critics. Your response, then, Vaj, makes no sense. It isif we take you at your wordnot just that you don't care if you are believed or not (whether you have even been on Broadway; you go much further than this: You wish to impugn your own credibility by deliberately giving the impression that you have not seen the play, acted in it, met the author by making sure whenever you talk about the production you say things which no other member of the audience would say, let along someone who has acted in the production. Or who has discussed the play with its author. Either this, or you are making the whole thing up. Now there has been someone who has posted recently here at FFL who I recognize as a person who really did attend those seminars, someone who would presumably be familiar with you. Would you like me to ask them point-blank whether they remember you or not? IIf any of what you say is true, Vaj, what's the game here? We have seen snow; we have played in the snow; we have built snowmen. You say you have stomped through the snow as well; but it is as if you keep telling us that snow is green and makes a lot of noise when it falls from the sky. In fact TM is not like this at all. Be sure that we find your comments about other productions on Broadway [which you have indeed seen] to be interesting; but we wonder why you continue to pretend to have been a part of a production which leaves a particular impression on everyone who saw the production and especially those who acted in it, when you do not bear that impression upon your person whatsoever. Same goes for the play I wrote and mounted. You either saw the play or were a cast member, or you didn't see the play and did not appear on stage. Those who profess to believe in your testimony have to work a lot harder to make the case for your credibility than those who find themselves continually ambushed by evidence you have never seen the play, a play which often is the center of discussion and argument here. Beats me, the whole damn thing, Vaj. You're intelligent, you're witty, you're knowledgable, you have a life, why dress up and pretend to play house?
