The "dark side" of FFL draws me back in. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavisma...@...> wrote: > > A concession is not the same as a contention, which I believe > you understand quite well, or else you would not have segued > at the end of your post from arguing that I made a contention > to that I had made a concession to Vaj.
To "concede" means to "lose," Marek, to admit that you don't know the truth of something. Judy is just kindly pointing out that you are a loser and she has never been because she has never conceded anything. :-) > And my "concession" to Vaj was an acknowledgement that I > don't *know* the truth of the matter discussed and I freely > admit the limitations of my knowledge, not only regarding > that issue but many things in life which are discussed. Exactly. This whole anti-Vaj rap has just been the "TM Teacher Boogie," in two cases performed by two TM teachers who have demonstrated for years that they are incapable of doing anything but parroting what Maharishi told them to say (Raunchydog and Nabby), and in one case by a *wannabe* TM teacher who wants to be able to declare "the truth" without even having earned the right to claim knowing it as a TM teacher. She's just a second-generation parrot. The thing that astounds me about all three is that they keep trying to bash Vaj for "not understanding" TM, *based on him understanding it very well, and having rejected it*. RD says that his descriptions of TM are not "correct" because they describe things using different language than he is "supposed* to use, or come to different conclusions than Maharishi did. What hubris. "We know the truth, because this guy named Maharishi told it to us." Furthermore, if you claim anything else, or use different language than the watered-down pablum that Maharishi used to describe things, you are not only "incorrect," your motives are in question. This "pile on Vaj" session was about one thing and one thing only -- "Demonize the TM critic." > My belief in the truth of something, even something that I > may have spent a lot of time studying or researching, doesn't > render it true, even though I may believe that it is. That is why you are a pleasant person to discuss things with, Marek, and why so many on this forum are *not* as pleasant to discuss things with. The sheer HUBRIS of someone believing that what they believe equates to "truth" blows my mind. I *understand* where this compulsion comes from (Maharishi), but that doesn't make it any less ego-bound and tedious to deal with. > I'm willing to discuss a subject and argue my position, to > the degree I have one, but I can't tell you that it is Truth > just because I have formed the opinion that it's true. That makes you a FAILURE in the eyes of the TM True Believer, Marek. If you had just understood what Maharishi said "correctly," you would know the Truth the way they do. :-) > Moreover, I have no animus for Vaj and within the context > of my discussion with him, as with most people, I prefer > to be polite and considerate. As opposed to acting like a dick, and worse, a True Believer dick. Vaj's "crime" was to disagree with Maharishi. No one here should lose sight of that bottom line. However these three may attempt to spin what they do, that is always their bottom line. Somewhere along the line they gave up the right to think for themselves, or to use "incorrect" language to think about or describe the meditation process. They played "Please the teacher" and learned to parrot his words perfectly. And now to mask their own lack of creative thought they call anyone not as limited as themselves "incorrect." It's a grade-school mentality. > He stated his views regarding a subject where I hold a > differing view; I don't have to be an asshole to disagree > with him; that's simple manners. "Simple manners" are not viewed as a positive thing if you have convinced yourself you know the Truth, Marek. Anyone who disagrees with your "truth" -- the truth as stated by the all- knowledgeable teacher -- is WRONG. Didn't you learn that in grade school? Didn't Mrs. Bupkus swat your hand with a ruler when you disagreed with her, and point out how "incorrect" you were, and what a Bad Person you were for being "incorrect?" That lesson "took" for Raunchydog and Nabby and Judy. They live in that mentality to this day, and attempt to impose it on others. They're intellectually and socially still *in* grade school. Me, I think you graduated and went on to higher studies, and that makes you a more interesting person than any of them...
