--- In [email protected], "dhamiltony2k5" <dhamiltony...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "dhamiltony2k5"
> > <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Om, that's cool. A meditating status does help puts a
> > > useful context to some of the criticism that often goes
> > > on here. Provides an insight of context. Current meditator,
> > > has-been meditator, and non-meditator. Status helps put a
> > > different scope on it when someone writes some critical or
> > > even hating meditation stuff. Is nice to be able to separate
> > > the meditators here from the non-meditators at the git-go.
> > > Who is who here.
> >
> > Doug,
> >
> > It's often difficult to tell when you're
> > doing one of your put-ons and when you're
> > serious and when you think you're doing
> > one of your put-ons but are serious. I'm
> > going to assume that this latest thing
> > is one of the latter.
> >
> > I honestly don't believe that "meditator
> > vs. non-meditator" proves anything except
> > an elitist bias in the person who might
> > believe it proves something. It's as silly
> > a black/white, either/or set of boxes as
> > any I've ever heard of. Have you ever seen
> > any evidence that long-term meditators are
> > consistently any different than anyone
> > else? I haven't.
> >
> > However, if creating little boxes and
> > putting people in them is your schtick,
> > I think you might do better with boxes
> > *within* the community of TM meditators.
> > I can think of several. I leave it to you to,
> > after you've identified all the meditators,
> > scan the list of them and put each one in
> > the box most suited to them in my scheme
> > of things.
> >
> > I know who my nominees for each box are,
> > but I figure it will be more fun if everyone
> > gets to populate them themselves. It'll be
> > even more fun seeing who gets all uptight
> > for being placed in one of the boxes by me,
> > when I didn't put them there. They did, by
> > getting uptight about it. :-)
> >
> > The Intellect-Challenged. This box is
> > filled with individuals who have demon-
> > strated not only a shocking lack of
> > knowledge about spirituality as a whole
> > but also about TM spirituality. One of
> > the qualities of people in this box is
> > that not only do they rarely read or try
> > to learn new things, they look down on
> > learning new things. They honestly feel
> > that either what they know now is suf-
> > ficient and will be "enough" for the
> > rest of their lives, or that anything
> > they don't know now will just "come to
> > them" as a kind of "seeing." The fact
> > *that* they "see" it makes it true.
> >
> > The Intellect-Trapped. This box contains
> > those who are...uh...trapped in their
> > own intellects. Not only that, they are
> > *proud* of being trapped in their intel-
> > lects, and go on and on making excuses
> > for it. You can usually tell these people
> > by 1) a need to "defend" anything that
> > their intellect believes, 2) a need to
> > defend the intellect itself as good, and
> > 3) an even stronger need to "prove" that
> > anyone who believes something different
> > than their intellect believes has something
> > wrong with them. Interestingly, whereas
> > The Intellectually-Challenged sometimes
> > display real emotion, The Intellect-
> > Trapped rarely do. It's as if the only
> > emotion they can feel is the kind they
> > "jumpstart" themselves with an injection
> > of faux bhakti or manufactured outrage.
> > Also, interestingly enough, IMO The
> > Intellectually-Challenged are probably
> > more likely to eventually realize enlight-
> > enment because they're not smart enough
> > to do anything other than what they were
> > told to do. Whereas The Intellect-Trapped
> > constantly invent ways to block the
> > enlightenment process because they're so
> > afraid that it would mean loss of ego and
> > thus loss of intellect. The Intellect-
> > Trapped like to "win;" if there is no
> > debate or argument going on, they'll
> > provoke one and claim to have won it.
> >
> > The Fearless. The folks in this box aren't
> > really in a box. They got fed up with boxes
> > a while ago and don't have much to do with
> > them any more. They're pretty nice people,
> > and don't see meditation as the center of
> > their lives; instead, they see meditation
> > as merely one of the things they do that
> > helps to center their lives, along with
> > love, family, having fun, and above all
> > being themselves. They almost never argue
> > because unlike the two previous groups
> > they've got nothing to "prove." So far,
> > the folks in this group are the only ones
> > you'd want to have a drink with.
> >
> > The Lasher-Outers. The folks in this box
> > look down on and resent anyone who is
> > "off the program" or, worse, appears to
> > be having fun. The people in the first two
> > boxes do this, too, but what makes this box
> > unique is that the majority of folks in it
> > are lurkers who rarely post *except* to
> > lash out. That's *their* idea of fun. And
> > being "on the program."
> >
> > So, I've reacted to Doug's attempt to divide
> > the world into the "meditator box" and the
> > "non-meditator box" by creating my own
> > "meditator sub-boxes." Now you can file
> > your favorite FFL posters in them. Or
> > invent your own. I'm sure there are many
> > more such "meditator sub-boxes," but
> > I'm already bored with the subject. :-)
> >
> > Or you could just lash out. But you know
> > what box that'll put you in... :-)
> >
>
> Dear Turq, what r u trying to evade? You are or not. A meditator.
>
> Sent fra cellphone with thumbs.
>
> Best, -Doug out in FF
>
Your cellphone doesn't have a snipper?
