--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Arhata Osho <arhatafreespeech@> wrote: > > > > > > Outsiders have no clue what TM means let alone the infinite amount of > > > meditations> available. Take a poll of 'meditators' (including Yoga > > > people), and they have 0 interest! > > > > But if they forked over $2,500 they could get the HIGHEST teaching! You > > must convince them that whatever they are doing is only a relative benefit > > and lacks the mega mojo of full blown TM mantra meditation. If you can't > > get them to fork over the cash please at least see if you can get them to > > feel badly about their own practice. Maharishi will bless you for this. > > (By bless I mean ignore which is how he blessed the rest of us.) > > (No residual resentment on Curtis's part, nosireebob.)
Replying to obvious satire with a personal putdown? I payed $35 for TM. This criticism of the price has nothing to do with my personal experience of TM. Making fun of the hubris of the TM system's claim doesn't require a negitive emotional basis. It requires knowing their claims and not believing them. James Randi makes fun of them for the same grandiosity with no background in TM. My satire was actually perfectly in accordance with Maharishi's direct teaching and how his teachers present his "knowledge." The satire comes not from extreme exaggeration but the lack of it. "Contemplation and concentration keep the mind of the surface and don't bring the benifits of TM" claim, is part of the earliest exposure to his teaching for people. It is a statement of the superiority of TM over hundreds of other techniques that Maharishi knew nothing about. It is one of his ridiculous assertions meant to convey that he had the best and forget the rest. I called you out on using an ad hominem argument in our last discussion and I call you out again. This is anti-intellectual and an unfriendly interjection into a discussion of ideas. You aren't getting any traction with me by pretending to find justifications for your extremely rude tactic. I understand that your need this theory to understand why I would have the same TM experiences you do and conclude that Maharishi was making a big deal out of nothing. But it reveals the weakness in your intellectual position, and I am not fooled by this sophist maneuver. >
