fwiw, in a future lifetime, possibly two or three from this one, Vaj and the others on here with an antagonistic relationship to their TM experiences will be great proponents of the technique.
but there is zero chance of it being this lifetime, so no point in trying to change their minds during their current conflicted incarnation. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > Unless, you have actually practiced TM, and it doesn't > > > > sound like you have, you're just pontificating about > > > > something you don't know anything about. I don't know > > > > what meditation you practice, but I'd be surprised if > > > > you've ever had an effortless meditation a day in your > > > > life. > > > > > > Vaj claims to have been a *TM teacher*. > > > > Really? Well, Hush my mouth. Has he said anything > > specific that leads you to believe it's true? > > He's been very evasive about specifics, but I vaguely > recall at one point he did say something about which > TTC he was on. I had no basis to question what he > claimed, not being a teacher myself, but none of the > people here who were teachers challenged him on it. > I don't recall whether anyone here actually > confirmed it. > > I've seen former teachers demonstrate that they never > really got what TM was, but none in my experience has > ever gone off the deep end like Vaj has. You could > tell they'd at least been *exposed* to what MMY taught, > even if they hadn't gotten it straight. > > If Vaj really ever was a teacher, he's got some kind > of extremely weird cognitive deficit. He's frequently > dishonest, but I can't believe he'd be so *stupid* as > to think anyone who had ever been involved with TM > would fall for the sort of thing he was going on about > in this post, so I think he really must believe it > himself. > > And I'm not talking about matters of *opinion* here; > this stuff isn't a question of disagreement over > interpretation, it's just flat-out factually wrong. > It's as if someone were to say baseball was a flawed > version of cricket. Two different games. >
