--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > One can only hope that it is not like the things that > > Doug/Buck expresses here. His elitism and his disdain for > > "non-meditators" is as loathsome in its way as the TMO's > > obvious disdain for "non-TBs." Also, as Joe points out, > > I think Doug would not only say that the "goal" of any > > such initiative would not only be to encourage as many > > people to meditate as possible, but to use any means > > necessary to *force* them to meditate. whether they > > want to or not. > > Turq, thanks for noticing the distinction. However you're > asserting a mighty large assumption about the supposed elitism. > Naah, anyone who can think can be spiritual. Whether pure or > impure. It's the science which says that everyone ought to > meditate. Should meditate. As effective spiritual practice. > That's the science.
Doug, with all due respect, Curtis recently put you in your place re the use of the word "science." You shame the word by even uttering it, and clearly have no earthly idea what it means. To you "science" means "finding some plausible (to idiots) way of describing me believing claptrap that doesn't make it sound like claptrap." There IS no real science behind TM. Not yet, anyway. You just like to pretend there is because that makes it look less like you are just believing fairy stories told to you by a charlatan, fairy stories you have used to guide your lifestyle since the day you first heard them, without ever questioning whether they were true or not. You use the word "science" as a way of saying, "See...look at these pretty charts...the fairy stories told to me *must* have been true...look at the pretty charts...so I don't ever *have* to look into the fairy stories to see if they are true." > Would simply be good for everyone's benefit to facilitate human > brain development that way. There is simply no evidence that this is true. The most that can be said scientifically is that some -- very, very few given the general population -- seem to have found some benefit in meditation. That simply cannot be expanded to "Everyone should meditate" except by wannabe tyrants. > However, I am comfortable now with Keith, Jerry, Hagelin, > David Lynch, Roth and them capable types figuring it out for > a teaching TM movement. I notice that you don't include *yourself* in that list of people "responsible" to figure this out. I assume that you wouldn't be one of the people on the front lines doing the teaching, possibly at your own expense, either. Put up or shut up. If you think TM should be taught more, GO OUT AND TEACH IT. You don't need no "rehabilitated" TM movement to allow you to do that. You're just hiding behind the demonization of people you blame for the TMO's demise and the oh-so-hopeful idealization of the people you hope will "save" it, SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. I'm being tough on your because of your act here on FFL, Doug. I'm pretty sure that some if not all of it *IS* an act. But it's a *pussy* act, a *lazy-assed* act, and at times an *insultingly* elitist act. I'm really tired of it. > Certainly NOT everyone needs to be at the table, especially > not old has-been meditation quitters who did not go the whole > way nor just necessarily a bunch of god-damned mood-making > pencil-neck TM-TB'ers without merit neither. Please explain to us why YOU are not one of these "quitters," Doug. When was the last time YOU taught TM to anyone? When was the last time YOU did any of the things you say the TMO "should" be doing? I'm thinking that the hypocrite factor around here just went up a notch or two. > This is large work to be done that needs some delegating. > Godspeed to them fighting the good fight in the middle for > us all. "While I sit here in front of a computer writing elitist bullshit to a forum of maybe 2000 people worldwide, doing NOTHING myself." Yeah, right. > Jai Adi Shankara, Jai Bullshit.
