You got one thing right though Barry - that I'm a troll. Yep totally, trolling for bullshit, pathological bullshit like yours.
On Mar 21, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why do you do this Barry - make me unhappy as I'm about go to bed. I hate you > OK. > > Wait you say I railed against Amma and then say I am a cultist? It doesn't > make any sense Barry - I have lot of negative things to say against > Maharishi, I suppose you forgot all that? > > Anyway that I railed against Amma is a fantasy, a fiction. I had certain very > specific things to say against her and her cult, I did during > August-September last year and I am done, it will just be rinse and repeat of > very specific things as time and occasion demands it. I am not not like you > - miserable, pathetic self railing against TM for last 30 -40 years is it? > Stalk forums looking to dump my shit on others like you. I'm never going to > be like you and MJ - some pathological need to speak against someone - > blaming them for everything under the Sun - like the Steubenville rape and > Penis snatching delusional beliefs in Africa..LOL > > You and MJ seriously need help for your pathological, delusional rantings. > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:31 PM, turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: >> >> It is worth pointing out that some TM cultists on >> this forum never even learned TM. They just join in >> the "piling on" against TM critics because they're >> too dumb to do anything else, because they're used >> to doing it and don't know how to do anything else, >> and because they feed on the strokes they get from >> other cultists when they do it. >> >> What MJ is doing is nothing more than what *you* >> did (and which we mainly tolerated) when you railed >> against Amma, the cult *you* were involved with. >> >> You need another trip back to India, Ravi. You >> actually seemed human when you were posting from >> there. Now you're just a troll. >> >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@...> >> wrote: >> > >> > Thank you Barry, I appreciate it, MJ is surely nodding his head as he reads >> > this - unfortunately his hands err fingers tied at 50 posts. I called them >> > critics - but no, I should have called them cultists - as you rightly point >> > out. These cultists - Judy, Share, feste, Steve better watch out. MJ will >> > come out with a fury that will be devastating. 30 anti-TM posts in the >> > first day, with the same consistent cluelessness, retardedness that will >> > have them breaking in to a cold sweat, which will be followed by 20 more >> > random clueless, retarded responses to these cultists in the second day. >> > You & I, I am sure will then step up to keep his message alive. Thanks >> > Barry. >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:17 PM, turquoiseb >> > <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>wrote: >> > >> > > ** >> >> > > >> > > >> > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or >> > > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they >> > > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to >> > > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist >> > > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. >> > > >> > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just >> > > how they interpret criticism of the organization >> > > or group they pathologically over-identify with. >> > > >> > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief >> > > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if >> > > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what >> > > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to >> > > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- >> > > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. >> > > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new >> > > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone >> > > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior >> > > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior >> > > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. >> > > >> > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they >> > > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, >> > > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can >> > > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions >> > > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. >> > > They feel compelled to describe those who believe >> > > differently than they do as having some failing or >> > > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, >> > > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. >> > > >> > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior >> > > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's >> > > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in >> > > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the >> > > face, then I think most people would recognize that >> > > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have >> > > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave >> > > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the >> > > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people >> > > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel >> > > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. >> > > >> > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are >> > > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, >> > > they react as if he's railing against them personally, >> > > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were >> > > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE >> > > in my view. >> > > >> > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your >> > > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. >> > > >> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. >> > > > >> > > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. >> > > > >> > > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) >> > > > never had any political influence, so they went instead >> > > > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and >> > > > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its >> > > > products. >> > > > >> > > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult >> > > > is any organization in which its members perceive any >> > > > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- >> > > > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, >> > > > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would >> > > > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, >> > > > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that >> > > > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. >> > > > >> > > > It's the overidentification with the group and the over- >> > > > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that >> > > > defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists. >> > > > That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns >> > > > like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the >> > > > critic while ignoring the criticisms. >> > > > >> > > > By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who >> > > > are definitely cultists. There are also some TM >> > > > practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely >> > > > hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the >> > > > need to follow up any criticism with samskaric >> > > > attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics. >> > > > >> > > > Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't >> > > > understand how they believe that they're presenting >> > > > a positive view of the organization they're "protecting" >> > > > or the technique it sells. If simple criticism can push >> > > > their buttons this badly after 30-40 years of practicing >> > > > it, then the technique really doesn't do much of anything >> > > > useful at all, does it? >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >
