--- In [email protected], grate.swan <no_re...@...> wrote:
> But that's why we dispatched all those teenage girls and young women to > seduce him and sap his vital energy, cloud his mind, and keep him doing > scores of shots every night. We have a strategy! It is working. Under these > "golden chains" he will never rise to become OverLord of the Universe. Now why in the fuck didn't someone just explain this to me in the first place? Now I can meditate in peace. Edg > > > > > > > > --- 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... :-) > > > > > >
