You make good points, and I withdraw my parallel. :-) I think this place (FFL) is best approached as "enter- tainment that has the capability of teaching." Like you, I have learned from many in my time here, and as much from those who disagreed with me as from those who agreed.
I'm fairly comfortable with my views of Maharishi, TM, the TMO, and spirituality in general, but IMO *none* of them constitute anything resembling "truth." They're just ideas that I have. I don't so much "believe in them" as "wear" them for a bit while toying with them. In so doing, occasionally I throw them out onto the Internet like spaghetti against a refrigerator; some idea-strands stick, others don't. No big deal either way. I honestly don't think there is enough there there about the whole TM experience to get emotional about or attached to. For me, at least. But I enjoy playing with ideas about it, as a form of amusement and as an opportunity to learn. It's one of my weird ideas of fun. What many of my detractors don't seem to understand when they cast me as a villain with a grudge against Maharishi is that I really couldn't give a flying fuck about him. He doesn't interest me. I'll never read a book about him, and have trouble making it through any of his quotes when they are posted here. He's so much a part of my past that I really can't identify enough to get all that interested in him. But THE TM MOVEMENT, and the people who populated it, or continue to, THEY are more interesting. FFL is, as Bhairitu suggests, "the Funny Farm Lounge." It's a zoo. It's a never- ending education in the ongoing history of spiritual movements -- or cults, if you prefer -- past, present, and future. Sooner or later every quirk or weirdness I've witnessed or even heard about in *any* spiritual group, *anywhere*, *anytime* gets acted out here on Fairfield Life. It's like a microcosm of spiritual weirdness. And, as that great philosopher Zaphod Beebelbrox said so eloquently, "Anything for a weird life." --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > From Barry: > > "As for parallels, I think mine was apt. Michael obsesses > on Maharishi and the TMO because it's an *ongoing issue*. > None of the practices and dishonesty he's upset about > have stopped; instead, they are normal, everyday policy. > But there is another sense in which your stalking is > like his (apologies in advance to Michael if I'm incorrect, > none needed with regard to the Judester because everyone > here knows I'm correct)." > > > I may have tried early on to convince others here on FFL that another point > of view might be wise, but it didn't take long before I learned that was a > forlorn hope - for the last several months at least I have been asking > questions and learning things both facts, personal anecdotes and opinions > that have helped me make sense of my time with TM and make sense of TM and > the TMO and Marshy in general. > > Aside from that, I do the same thing now that you say you do, I say how I > feel or what I believe and I do pose questions sometimes to see what others > believe - I have no illusions that anyone here will change their minds. > > I would like to thank to everyone who has posted here - I have been > criticized for agreeing with you Barry and it is true that sometimes you can > really cuss people out but for me I have gained a great deal of insight from > your points of view and the stories of what you saw and did in the TMO. > > I have gained not only from what you and Sal and Curtis have posted it but > others as well - if it weren't for Rick I might not have had my eyes opened > to M's sexual escapades - and while others excuse the behavior and even say > it made him "more human" for me it goes to credibility - I have a hard time > with believing someone is doing things in my best interest when they are > lying to my face everyday. It has been most helpful too to read much of Ravi > and Bhairitu's posts - a perspective of TM from the Indian perspective. > > > I have also gained from the exchanges with Nabby, Dr. D, seventhray and > others who have disagreed with or criticized me - it helped me see that some > people will hang on to their illusions no matter what - and I realize they > believe I am hanging on to my illusions. FFL has been very helpful for me and > at times quite amusing. So thank you everyone. > > ________________________________ > From: turquoiseb > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:09 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the > > > > > exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for > > > > > doing what you don't tolerate in others. I understand it, but > > > > > I shore don't agree with it. > > > > > > > > What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear > > > > to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be > > > > satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. > > > > > > Sorta the way *you* do when obsessing on Curtis or Vaj > > > or myself or others of your enemies? Just sayin'... :-) > > > > Allow me to obsess a little more and point out that you > > carefully, deliberately, and dishonestly failed to quote > > the part of my post that refutes your accusation: Like > > dishonest politicians and banksters, you are alive and > > kicking and being destructive. > > If what you wished to accomplish was to *demonstrate* > your obsession, and your tendency to project onto those > you dislike your *own* negative qualities, feel free. > I "allow" you. By all means, obsess away. :-) > > I never even *read* the parts of your post that I snipped, > much less deleted them "intentionally." That's something > *you* repeatedly accuse people of, because you're...uh... > insane, and you have a tendency to accuse others of the > very tactics that *you* employ. :-) > > As for parallels, I think mine was apt. Michael obsesses > on Maharishi and the TMO because it's an *ongoing issue*. > None of the practices and dishonesty he's upset about > have stopped; instead, they are normal, everyday policy. > But there is another sense in which your stalking is > like his (apologies in advance to Michael if I'm incorrect, > none needed with regard to the Judester because everyone > here knows I'm correct). > > That's the fact that it seems to *matter* to you both > very much that you are able to *convince* others to see > issues and obsessions the same way you do. You try to > *persuade* others to believe the way that you do, and > pile on to the issues you believe are issues. > > I honestly don't try to do that. I'm here just for my > own amusement. I state my opinions -- making clear that > opinions is *all* that they are -- and then allow others > to react or not react, as they see fit. I don't get drawn > into long ego-battles to establish my opinion as the > correct one or the dominant one, and I don't try to get > other people to defend an opposite position. If they > choose to do that, it's their choice; if they choose not > to, that's their choice too. Either way is fine with me. > > Compare and contrast with the Judester, whose *entire > online life* can be accurately characterized as a quest > to get other people to see things the warped way she > sees them, agree with it, and align themselves with her > in demonizing the people or orgs she believes are demons. > Michael, you have a touch of that yourself, although > not really in the same ballpark as The Corrector. She's > obsessed about *her* nemesis (moi) for over seventeen > years now, trying her best to get everyone on every forum > we've shared to think badly of me and diss me the way > they "should" according to her world view. > > What really gets her panties in a twist is that she has > *failed* in this. People still manage to interact with > me without wearing the hate-blinders she wants them to > wear; people still realize that often I point out truths > about Maharishi, King Tonytwit, TM, and the TMO, and > react to them as what they are -- mere opinions, not an > attempt to sell them anything. > > This drives her crazy. It drove her crazy when people > continued to like Curtis and Vaj and Sal Sunshine, too. > It *still* drives her crazy when people continue to like > or say positive things about Andrew Skolnick, or Mike > Doughney, or John Knapp, or John From Brazil -- all > people she's dedicated *enormous* amounts of time and > energy and hatred towards getting people to hate, too. > > What precipitated this set of attacks on MJ, from my > point of view, is that this was happening again. A few > people were reacting...uh...not negatively to Michael, > and to me, so she "had" to step in to Correct Things. > It's her dharma, you see -- she really does see herself > as Andrew lampooned her: Judy Stein: Defender of the > Faith. :-) > > Consider all of this, Michael. IMO, there is really no > point in trying to convince TM TBs to believe anything > other than the TM TB dogma they already believe. You > can only express opinions, and then sit back and watch > to See What Happens. Change takes time, and in matters > of belief, only comes from within. > > Don't bother spending a lot of energy trying to convince > them -- it simply cannot be done. Just state what you > believe and then allow *them* to make your points for > you by overreacting and going into "Kill the messenger" > mode. If what you desire is to make the point that TM > practitioners are cultists, their *own behavior* demon- > strates this far better than anything you could say. > > As for Judy, I will *continue* to express my opinions, > and a few feeble minds here will *continue* to join her > in overreacting to them, and at the same time some posters > here will *continue* to like me *anyway*, and there is > simply nothing she can do about this. If she's been an > absolute failure at this quest of hers for seventeen > years, she's not going to turn it into a winning streak > at this late stage of the game. :-) > > And in the end, that knowledge is the best possible > revenge for seventeen years of stalking. :-) >
