--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lenz may have been perceptive about some areas of psychology > regarding men and women. However, I've read some things about > him and his seduction of women under the guise of helping them > spiritually that were disgusting to put it mildly.
Having known a few of these women and heard how they described their affairs with him *while they were going on*, and then later, when they discovered that they were not going to become Mrs. Lenz, I don't tend to take all reports seriously. One woman bored my ass off telling me how wonderful her first sexual encounter was with him, and then six months later went to the papers and claimed that he had waved a gun around and threatened her. That detail was...uh...missing in her earlier recounting of the story, to me and to dozens of other people she talked to. That said, there were some of his female students that he definitely should *not* have gotten involved with, and did. I consider that a major failing on his part. > With him wildly enjoying for a while the role of a wolf > in sheep's clothing, I find it impossible to take anything > he said respectfully or seriously. So you're one of those judgmental people who believe that if someone has a fault or faults that you don't like, they cannot have any good qualities? Or that they cannot possibly know anything worth teaching, in a spiritual sense? Just checking, because last time I checked the teacher you revere (while never having met him) has a fairly well-documented history of having been a wolf in sheep's pussies himself. Wouldn't that mean that, to be consistent, you should find it impossible to take anything Maharishi says respectfully or seriously? > He was a mixed up kid who discovered a gift for gab, and > was killed by his guilt. I don't think guilt had anything whatsoever to do with his death. Ego, yes. Drugs, yes. An inability to take responsibility for his actions, yes. But guilt, no. > PS My earlier comments regarding Tibetan Buddhism and Buddhism in > general were designed to see if I could elicit similar behavior from > those on here who after religiously knocking TM and the followers of > Maharishi, then castigate those who reply as TBs. It worked- The > Buddhists mirrored the TB behavior perfectly. No need to repeat any > of it- Just clarifying that it was more than a trolling exercise. Your perception that any of the "Tibetan Buddhists" on the group with the exception of Llundrub reacted the way you claim is as flawed as your perception of Lenz killing himself out of guilt. Vaj and I merely corrected a few of your inaccurate statements; only Llun got uptight about what you said. I just figured you were having a hissy fit because you'd embarrassed yourself earlier in the discussion. :-) But your description of what you had in mind above, even if it were true, is the definition of trolling. That's what you were doing.
