--- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stan...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > On May 31, 2009, at 7:08 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > >> > > >> Strong Buddhists and Taoists I've met seem content > > >> with Here And Now, and do their best to make the best > > >> of what Here And Now presents them. In contrast, if > > >> you look even at the sampling of "TM thought" we see > > >> on this forum, many if not most of the things said > > >> about the world by its adherents are anything *but* > > >> content with Here And Now. They're more about long- > > >> ing for "someday" and all that mythical "someday" > > >> promises. If they're more blissed-out, "someday" > > >> becomes "Any day now." But it's still not Here And > > >> Now...it's always off in some theoretical future. > > > > > > It would be refreshing if FFL had some of these > > > mythical Strong Buddhists, content with Here And Now. > > > FFL's Buddhists mostly just vent their discontent > > > with the Here And Now of TM and TMers and/or the > > > There And Then of MMY. > > > > I don't believe that's what Turq is talking about. If > > these "Buddhists" were doing the same thing he's > > describing in TM folks, then there'd be many posts on > > "Shambhala on earth" being posted by Buddhist zealots > > and TB's about some magical time that their collective > > practices and numbers of adherents would bring about a > > remarkable golden age of world harmony as all the > > cities would be torn down and rebuilt to be like Buddhist > > mandalas. > > > > I must have missed all these posts, could you point me > > to some to some Alex. One? > > Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed the restriction on > this thread that any example of not being content with > Here And Now has to be an exact analog of TMers not > being content with Here And Now.
Oddly, the posts *I* seem to have missed are those in which the TMers here go on at length about "some magical time that their collective practices" etc. Every now and then we do see TMO-published material posted, but the response to it is typically the TM critics venting their discontent with it, as you say, Alex, not TMers cheerleading for it. (Sometimes I have the sense there's a whole 'nother FFL going on that I never see, with a whole different set of participants. On the FFL I *do* see, this other FFL is repeatedly described by the TM critics, but it just never seems to be anything I have access to.)
