--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > The TM tru-believers on one end, some practitioners in > > the middle, and the TM-haters on the other end. > > I would like to challenge the Glenn Beckiness of this idea > of TM haters.
And about bloody fuckin' time. Hear, hear. > Who are you talking about? Let's go down the list on this > board. > > Vaj seems to believe that TM is for dilettantes, spiritual > babies who are not ready for the real deal. He does however > seem to believe in the basic structure of humans gaining > higher states through spiritual practices. He doesn't seem > to think TM can get you there. > > So does he hate TM? I think he has shown contempt for it > as a spiritual practice and doesn't seem to give Maharishi > credit for being the most important man in human history > as he presents himself. But all of this is motivated by > a certain earnestness in the ideal of the whole project > of spiritual practice. He has contempt for TM because he > doesn't believe it is true to its advertising. Can you > really fault the guy for that since it is what he truly > believes and it is important to him? His goals seem so > similar to your own. I can confess to never having thought of it this way, since I've never been tempted to think of Vaj in a "him vs. us" configuration, but Curtis' assesssment mirrors my own. I luv the guy for some of the things he posts here, but I'm just not in that place. > Barry also seems to see TM as a starter practice and > prefers other versions, but values meditation itself. He > has even given TM some credit for beginners. He has shown > some contempt for the pompous posturings of Maharishi > about his status and seems to hate all the things in the > current movement that you do. I honestly don't hate them, Curtis, no more than I think you do. I *understand* them, having Been There, Done That. *Having* been there, done that, unlike many of the "TM hater" promoters on this forum, I have pretty much infinite compassion for those who are still there, still doing that. Those that who have never either been there nor done that have no fuckin' place in the discussions in my opinion. > Me. Well for all my Maharishi goofing I am quite nostalgic > about my time with the old guy. To differentiate myself from da Blues Guy, I am not. Haven't been in decades. There is no sum of money that could possibly entice me to be "part of" the TMO again. That said, I have an enduring fascination with those who feel otherwise after all these years. The next thought after "What can I have been thinking?" should probably be "What can they be thinking?" You don't look down on people like that; you commiserate with them. > I do think he was mostly full of shit but...drum roll...I > dig his TM. Not having any lofty spiritual aspirations, I > don't care if it has training wheels or not. And all the > puja/bija mantra namahs add to the cultural charm. I couldn't > care less if my practice is giving some Hindu god the prison > courtesy of a reach-around, I enjoy TM and have become quite > addicted to practicing it before shows. And when I sit there > in the 5 minutes of silence after I stop sticking my tongue > in the ear of my favorite multi-armed Hindu goddess, I feel > positively beatific. It is one of the peak experiences that > I look forward to in my day. I'm down with absolutely everything Curtis says here, except for the ear thang. I think he's aiming too high. :-) > Soooo I guess you must mean the camp that believes that TM > has hurt them or people they treat like John Knapp. Perhaps > he is an actual TM hater. I don't know John, but I suspect that given the fact that he has bowed out of TM-free and concentrated his attention on helping people, he's not one you or anyone else should include in this category. > I guess what I am saying is that TM-haters as a term is > unnecessary drama as a term for people who don't think > about TM exactly as you do. Let's say that again, a little louder this time, because a lot of TM addicts on this forum are a little hard of hearing: I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT TM-HATERS AS A TERM IS UNNECESSARY DRAMA FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T THINK ABOUT TM EXACTLY AS YOU DO. > Most people are TM-don't-give-a-shits. You should feel > lucky if any of us think about it at all to even write. What he said. Especially those of you who live for what we write so that you can "rebut" it. > It may prolong the inevitable death of this fascinating > micro-cultural movement for a minute or two longer. But not much longer IMO. > (Sorry for any misrepresentations of Barry and Vaj's > position but I missed the last TM-haters meeting and > don't have the latest talking points.) No loss, dude. My informants tell me they didn't even serve booze. Chamomile tea and stale oatmeal cookies. No boinkable women. My buds left after five minutes.
