--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > His philosophy is his own, not "borrowed," first of all, as > > Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, > > given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a > > fraud-- > > > > "Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi > > did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity > > to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his > > purpose in this life." > > > > --how would this "butter up" TMers? > > > > Could it be that Robin suffers from a disconnect between his > emotional relationship with Maharishi and his intellectual > relationship with Maharishi? > > If Maharishi is a fraud and he still loves this fraud and > has fond memories of this fraud? > > That means Robin is in the same boat as Barry who has fond > memories of this 'Cheater cunt Rama' and brags over and over > again about how much he benefited from him. > > Think about it authbabe.
Interesting way to address her, I don't think I've seen this one yet. Maybe you too have this > disconnect. I think Judy mostly states the facts. Her "disconnect"(s), foibles and personal hangups don't really seem to be at the forefront of what she writes. Often she points out mistakes, factual errors, timeline faults. Frequently the recipient of these corrections doesn't like it and accuses her of this and that. But if you really look she doesn't seem to have any personal agendas or real vendettas going on (although some are certainly the target of her unwavering attention). In some ways I see her as the conscience we should all possess but, for various reasons at times, don't. Of course Barry and Curtis would disagree mightily with this assessment. > > > > > TM critics, maybe. It's always puzzled me that the most > > vocal TM critics on this forum are also Robin's most vocal > > critics. You'd think they'd be eager to make common cause > > with him. > > > > > 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you > > > *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came > > > *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this > > > is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had > > > an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you > > > felt for him was the "highest love you'd ever experienced," > > > but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. > > > What's up with that? > > > > How can one suggest he has "avoided dealing with the > > possibility" that he had an "enormous man-crush" on > > Maharishi when he's stated explicitly over and over how > > much he loved him? > > > > >
