--- In [email protected], satvadude108 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], satvadude108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:42 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > > They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what > > > > > MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF > > > > > COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu > > > > > dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come > > > > > with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll > > > > > attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING > > > > > rather than violate this First Commandment. > > > > > > > > My personal fave, (paraphrased): > > > > "We don't have to tell the kids what the > > > > underpinnings are, if people like John > > > > Knapp would just keep their mouths shut." > > > > > > > > Now there's a raving endorsement for the > > > > integrity of the teaching. > > > > > > > > > And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. > > > > > > > > Not me, I still find it endlessly entertaining. > > > > > > Kinda tells you where the person who frequently says > > > > > > "I *never* lie." > > > > > > sets the bar on her personal honesty. > > > > > > Even do.rflex, who had his nose up her butt > > > so long he developed ring around the collar, has > > > acknowledged how completely dishonest this > > > position is regarding the non-religiousity of teaching > > > TM in schools. > > > > > > I've wondered for some time if the vehement > > > argument she makes was based on delusion or > > > dishonesty. It is probably both. > > > > > > In all compassion -- really -- I think > > that Judy's stance is as old as the "con > > game" and as understandable. It's how the > > "con game" WORKS, and why it's *always* > > worked. > > > > PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONNED > > DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT, TO > > THEMSELVES, OR TO ANYONE ELSE. > > > > The more self-importance the conned person > > has, the more vehemently they resist admit- > > ting that they have been conned. They will > > become "apologists" for the con men, will > > "defend" them the way that people *who > > were conned by Je-Ru* defended him, and > > will go to their graves doing so, because > > their sense of self-importance is stronger > > than their sense of integrity and honesty. > > > > For such people, it is better to be thought > > a fool than to admit to having been one. > > > > Judy MUST know how ridiculous her stance > > in all of this makes her look. But she > > continues that stance nonetheless. I think > > that my explanation is the only one that > > "fits" her behavior. > > > > Have you EVER known Judy Stein to admit > > to having been WRONG, except to a tiny > > fact or typo? > > > > I haven't, either. None of us have. > > > > Do you think that a person with that level > > of self-importance is going to admit to > > having been WRONG about the very nature > > of the practice she has been doing every > > day for 30+ years? > > > > Not gonna happen... > > Once again I must bow to your wisdom and the > great compassion you show here. If I had been stalked > by her as long as you, I surely would not be capable > of the level of equanimity you display. You must > practice Metta and send lovingkindness to her daily.
I have to admit that it's more of an idealistic bashing-one's-head-against- a-brick-wall compassion than a all-God's- creatures-are-one-and-deserve-compassion compassion, but Yes, there is some com- passion involved in my stance with Judy. After 15 years of being stalked by her, for (in my estimation) 75% petty ego reasons and 25% dyed-in-the-wool cultist reasons, I would be an idiot to believe that she is capable of change, and of rational thought. Yet I persist in believing that. It's the balance of ego vs. cult thinking that makes me think that way. If she were a pure cultist, there would be no hope for her. But she isn't. What other people think of her is MUCH more important to her than her own supposed principles. That's the real "common denominator" of all of her posts -- an attempt to control and spin her own words and actions to micro- manage her own image, and to try to make others hold the same image of her that she does. It's MUCH more an ego thang than it is a cult thang. As compared to, say, Nabby, for whom it is definitely a cult thang. He's been crazy for so long that he doesn't CARE any more that he is perceived as crazy. Judy CARES. Nothing gets her bent out of shape more than a new person on this forum realizing that she's crazy. When that happens she goes...uh...a little more crazy trying to spin it and "defend" the image she's trying to project. This cycle, according to Buddhism, is the beginning of wisdom. It's a "samsara cycle," a blind repeating of the same actions over and over and over in an attempt to "win" something that cannot be won, producing the *same* non-desired results with each cycle. Sooner or later, according to Buddhist thought, the person caught in the cycle will "catch on" and end it. The fact that they CAN end it is one of the lynchpins of Buddhist thought; it is a confirmation of free will, and the ability to transcend one's karma. Judy doesn't even *believe* in free will, but she has it, and I still believe that someday, in some incarn- ation, she will overcome her terror at the idea of "exerting effort" or "using one's will" and do a little of both, and get herself out of the cycle, and off the wheel. I'm not silly enough to believe in the "Bodhi- sattva Vow" and swear off enlightenment for myself until every sentient creature has realized their own enlightenment. I settle for trying to poke and prod Judy into break- ing the samsaric cycle she is caught in. On the other hand, some might say that it is more likely that all other sentient creatures in the universe realize their enlightenment than it is for Judy is able to break out of her own ego-cycle. Thus maybe it's the guys who have taken the Boddhisattva Vow who are the smart ones and me that's silly. :-) :-) :-)
