--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Barry has really missed your fluffing services,
> > > > navashok. I'm sure he's very glad to see you.
(mercy snip of navashok's catastrophic own-goal)
> > > > Except that my knowledge is more than just "superficial
> > > > beginner level," and my understanding is better than
> > > > that of some teachers.
> > >
> > > Then talk about it, and don't always withdraw to the most
> > > official and most common texts from the TM websites.
> >
> > I do and have done so often, as you know. In this case it
> > was appropriate for me to document my points.
>
> No, you don't document your points, you *escape* with standard
> stereotype phrases. You neglect valid points which come from a
> place of greater knowledge and play stupid innocent. That's
> what you do.
Gosh, that's an impressive-sounding analysis. Too bad it
isn't true.
> > > > > You can never compare the type of involvement she
> > > > > has and had with that of some more dedicated people,
> > > > > who were involved on the organizational level, for
> > > > > several years, had direct interactions with a
> > > > > teacher (Maharishi), even if this is decades ago, it
> > > > > is more revealing and rich than just plain-vanilla-
> > > > > TM-consumerism and I-know-all-TM-teachings-by-heart.
> > > >
> > > > And I've never claimed my knowledge goes beyond what
> > > > is taught to the rank-and-file and what I've picked
> > > > up from teachers on this and other Web forums. Oh,
> > > > and during my stay at the TM facility in Asbury Park
> > > > back in '95-'96.
> > >
> > > That always makes me laugh when you mention that. Keep
> > > mentioning it in 10 more years.
> >
> > You should only know how it makes *me* laugh when you
> > pretend something is funny but decline to say why. Do
> > you have *any* idea how transparent you are?
>
> Well, if it's so transparent,
Not "it," *you*.
> why don't you laugh with me?
I guess you don't understand what "transparent" means in
this context. Another way of saying it is that you're very
easy to see through. Make sense now?
> I mean do you still keep track of time somehow?
>
> > > You know, even Robin was clear about this: you not having
> > > been a TM teacher, can not really fathom what the TM
> > > movement was then and now.
> >
> > Of course I can't. I've never disputed this (and nobody
> > had to tell me about it either).
>
> Robin obviously felt he had to.
You thought he was saying this for *my* benefit, because *I*
needed to hear it? LOL.
> > > Because TM teachers had a
> > > better insight into the movement, they couldn't be as naive as
> > > the 'rank and file', and were therefore more easily
> > > disillusioned.
> >
> > I have no doubt.
>
> Then you should give both Curtis and Barry some credit for it,
> rather than supporting the utterly dump arguments of Doc and
> little Nabby.
("Dumb," not "dump.")
Actually (as you know) I rarely support DrD's and Nabby's
arguments. And in any case, it isn't Barry's and Curtis's
disillusionment I go after; they have a right to that.
It's their arrogance and hubris.
> > > You just couldn't look at the whole thing the same way, if
> > > you knew more,
> >
> > Not only do you not know how I'm looking at it, you don't
> > even know what my dispute with Curtis was about.
>
> Even though this may come as a surprise to you, but I am able
> to read.
Your comprehension of written English isn't anywhere near as
good as you think it is. If you disagree, tell us how you think
I'm looking at the whole thing, and what my dispute with Curtis
was about.
> Oh, yeah, I know, you try to make these exchanges unreadable,
> you try very hard at it, sometimes somebody still reads it.
LOL.
> > and were let into more secrets, and Maharishi
> > > would sometimes let those secrets out, sometimes in the
> > > middle of the night in Noida, when everybody was half asleep.
> > > These self-classification tests were being done, as to being
> > > clear or hazy transcendence, or clear ritam or hazy ritam.
> > >
> > > The problem is not, that you weren't there, or that you
> > > didn't have the opportunity to be on those courses. The
> > > problem is really that you play the movement spokesman
> > > on the basis of those superficial public statements, that
> > > you play out the PR spin. Now that is superficial.
> >
> > Not true on any count. I don't play "movement spokesman,"
> > I play a long-time TMer who watches the movement from
> > afar; I rarely cite TMO public statements; my interest
> > isn't in PR but in accuracy; and since none of what you
> > say is even *true*, it can't be said to be superficial.
> >
> > I'll get to your silly sutra post later.
>
> There is really nothing you have in hand about it.
"In hand about it"? I don't know what that's supposed to
mean.
It's a silly post with nothing substantive in it.
> > > > > If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is
> > > > > still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical
> > > > > body. There will be always a conflict with older souls
> > > > > here, who draw from a wider field of experience and
> > > > > thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests
> > > > > usually early on in this life.
> > > >
> > > > Hilarious. Share will love it, though.
> > >
> > > She didn't, but I stick with it.
Actually I meant she'd love the idea of categorizing people
as older or younger souls, whether she agrees with the
categorization of any particular person or not.
