--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
This post has some interesting insight. I think Judy's description of her own motives seem accurate. I know she also has a deep emotional investment in Maharishi's world view, but that seems natural given her years of practice and interest. When she goes after my posts is it usually with a balancing perspective that I enjoy and find useful. But I think she is missing the core of Vaj's motivations here. She is assuming the same negitive spin on his intentions that she is claiming he does with movement people. Vaj really really believes in his POV about the movement. (I do with my own too.) He sincerely believes in the value of spiritual practices just as Judy does, from his own experience and interpretation of them. So both of you are deeply committed for good reasons. The problem is that they are in direct contradiction. For Vaj, as I understand his POV, he believes that Judy is actually not experiencing what she thinks she is in TM. He believes that she would be better served with another practice of meditation. For Judy, as I understand her POV, she is experiencing what Maharishi described in his teaching and uses that explanation as her functional belief context. (I am equivocating a bit because Judy's relationship with beliefs is nuanced.) She believes that Vaj's attacks are mean spirited due to malicious intent or severe character flaw. And here is my Dr. Phil moment... How are those assumptions working out for you? If you dig the style of antagonistic battles carry on and enjoy them. But if they don't serve you, it might be because you are both stuck in a limited perspective of each other. That may be the only way this can work so please don't mistake my input as me thinking I am offering profound insight. I am just giving you both my take since I have a ringside seat and enjoy reading both your posts here. I have long been an unsuccessful advocate of the POV that you both share the biggest assumptions about reality. You just don't agree with the details. And that discussion is interesting to the rest of us because you disagree in entertaining detail. In the past Judy has responded with a perspective on how bad Vaj is and his many transgressions in her eyes. And Vaj has his own equally uncomplimentary take on Judy world. For my money you both add an intensity of interest in these topics and a willingness to write about them that is unique and valuable here. I am encouraging any interaction on the topics of spiritual practices. The posts about each others character flaws are really none of my business. (Of course that hasn't stopped me!) Guys like me are posting here from the bleachers beyond left field concerning spirituality. I like my seat and its perks of regular hot dogs and hot chicks navigating their way to their seats. But you two are on the field and you are interesting writers. A more charitable view of each other might facilitate more of what I come to the game to watch here. OK thanks for listening. I'm back to my fascination with how that chick in the micro mini is going to get herself up to the bleachers without becoming the latest picture on voyeurweb.com. (Er...uh...if there was such a site...) I can see about 30 guys with cellphone cameras tracking her every step. > > --- In [email protected], "boo_lives" <boo_lives@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > <snip> > > > > ("World domination." Hilarious.) > > > > > > > > > Should we go through the criteria, one by one? > > > > > > > > > > I'd really enjoy that. Let's do it! > > > > > > > > Oh, yes, let's! Why don't we start with this: > > > > > > > > "If you cannot find anyone who has all of these > > > > attributes, at least find someone who has more > > > > good qualities than defects." > > > > > > Very few give any response to the posts by this > > > Buddhist fundamentalist Vaj. He is ignored yet > > > year after year he spends a lot of time here with > > > his foolish propaganda and downright lies. I > > > suppose he must be retired to have so much time > > > on hand. Doen't he have better things to do, > > > walking dogs for example ? ;-) > > > > > I find Vaj very interesting, at least it's usually > > info I've not come across before even if I don't > > agree completely. > > > > What I actually don't get is why nabluss and the > > like post here. We've all been exposed to approved > > tmo doctrine for decades, we know all the perfect > > logic, spent 1000s of hours listening to mmy, even > > promoted it ourselves for years and years, but it > > doesn't work for us anymore and most of us here are > > looking to process our tmo involvement and freely > > explore alternative world views, or at least modify > > the approved doctrine to something that fits our > > reality (or some reality). > > > > WHY THE NEED for tmo TBs to try to enforce official > > tmo thinking here? > > I'm not a "tmo TB" by any stretch, although I > suspect you're including me here. > > From my perspective, it isn't at all a matter of > trying to "enforce" official TMO thinking; it > would be foolish in the extreme to make such an > attempt. > > Often the "alternative world view" incorporates > an extremely uncharitable interpretation of why > the TMO has done or said something. In some of > those cases, there's a more positive > interpretation that's at least somewhat plausible. > Since we don't know for sure what the TMO was > thinking, it makes sense to me that both possible > interpretations be provided. > > Plus which, there are a few people here whose > negative views of the TMO/MMY/TMers are > consistently expressed in an unnecessarily > unpleasant, superior, demeaning, insulting tone. > In at least some cases, what we're responding to > is as much the tone as the specifics. My response > to Vaj that you quote above was one such case. > > And then there are the flat-out factually > inaccurate or grossly misleading criticisms. > Nobody sensible should want their alternative > worldview to be based on such statements. > > And when one of the unpleasant people mentioned > above consistently comes out with factually > inaccurate or misleading criticisms, it's > awfully hard to resist thinking they're being > deliberately dishonest. > > If you're dubious about what I just wrote, you > might want to take into account how many of > the criticisms made here we *don't* object to. > If you compare those we don't object to to those > we do object to, I think you'll probably find > that the latter mostly, if not all, tend to fall > into the above categories. > > <snip> > > This site isn't filled with J.Knapp's who are > > out there as anti TM activists, we're just > > individuals generally with long "spiritual" > > histories working things out amongst ourselves > > It's not "filled" with them, certainly, but there > are several who seem to be at least informal > anti-TM activists, who are here not to work things > out but simply to bash. I think it would be > extremely difficult to characterize Vaj as wanting > to work things out for himself. He's already > decided, and he wants to push anyone still on the > fence to decide the same way, while at the same > time nastily putting down anyone who leans the > other way. And he doesn't seem to me to have many > scruples as to how he accomplishes that, with > regard either to honesty or minimal tolerance for > disagreement. >
