So what do you consider a cheap shot that I have taken at Maharishi? I can't think of anything I have said about him that I didn't sincerely mean. My shots are carefully considered and not cheap at all.
I was a teenager and forming my adult identity when I first saw Maharishi in person. Your characterization of me losing my identity is an opinion based on speculation without knowing me as a young man. I consider my time with him to be part of my maturation and an important part of my finding my adult identity. Your unflattering mischaracterization is much more of a cheap shot than anything I have said about him. I was no more lost at that age then you were. You seem proud that you never took the time to spend time with the guy and go on his most intensive programs. But it leads to you having a fantasy bond with your own imagination about him. Your objections to my opinion about him have no basis in who he actually was. He is just a made up abstractions based on whatever few tapes they let sidhas see. But I may be wrong. Trot out some "cheap shots" and I'll see if I can justify them. --- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > It was a challenge, but not a challenge to your SOC vs. mine, more a > curiosity about how you defined such a thing as self realization. There was > no snark in my remark about it being a gimme, more like saying if you in fact > do drive a car, pointing out the accelerator should be no big deal. > > As for my so-called harsh post, I meant every word of it. I agree with you > that you became so incredibly seduced by Maharishi at one point that you lost > any semblance of who you really were, and are now trying to make sense of > where you stand wrt him. However I also see you taking cheap shots at him > that belie your attempts to figure him out. You admit as much and I > appreciate that, however I think you could write about MMY as far less than > perfect, as many on here do, without the cheap shots. > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > > > wtf? I ask you a question and all of a sudden you are the victim of > > > spiritual one-upsmanship? > > > > <Snip> > > > > Hey Jim, > > > > It came on the heels of a pretty harsh post from you which said : > > > > <Seems like you, Curtis and Vaj enjoy wasting your time speculating about > > self realization, without any attempt to accomplish it yourselves.> > > > > > > > There is a whole heaping helping of one upmanship in that insult stream so > > I didn't know you had switched gears. I have a hard time taking your "WTF" > > seriously. I don't believe I have read you wrong. I am taking you are face > > value, you are claiming that you are in a special state of consciousness > > and I am not. > > > > I was also reading the snark in the line: >If you are indeed self > > realized, this should be a gimme for you.> > > > > That is not the start of a friendly discussion, it was a challenge. > > > > I don't feel as though you are being straight with me. > > > > This was in reaction to my own post which was not a personal attack on you, > > but was about ideas, and how mine differ from Maharishi's. I don't know > > why you feel compelled to make such discussions personal. You and I have > > had a very different relationship with the guy. I am entitled to my > > opinion without having to defend myself personally. > > > > My view of self realization is independent from any of the states produced > > through Maharishi's programs. But it certainly includes the ability to > > discuss ideas without having to insult the person who doesn't share your > > beliefs. That would be about the lowest bar required IMO. > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > > > wtf? I ask you a question and all of a sudden you are the victim of > > > spiritual one-upsmanship? I am curious how your def of self realization > > > differs. What I meant when I asked about your SOC was that you have been > > > in the Movement so you know what the milestones of CC, GC and UC are. > > > Whether you accept Maharishi's definitions, self-realization has specific > > > attributes. That's where I was going with it. Just as I don't read every > > > word of yours, it is clear you don't read mine (which is nbd), otherwise > > > you would know I have never played spiritual one upsmanship games here. > > > The only folks that do are B and V. It is a huge time waster and > > > distraction, imo. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we want to see your papers, Herr Curtis! There are some reported > > > > > hoodlums and lower rogue elements masquerading as self-realized > > > > > beings. We have orders to shoot these frauds on sight. > > > > > > > > > > Remember Herr Curtis, you can't simply bask in the joy of your own > > > > > existence. You must be certified to do so. And enjoying life without > > > > > proper papers and titles, impossible! > > > > > > > > Ya vol mein herr! > > > > > > > > The first rule of spiritual one upmanship is that MY self-realization > > > > is the right one, and yours is the wrong one. > > > > > > > > The second is, if you dont't use the authorized names to describe it > > > > that I do,then your self realization is relative and superficial, and > > > > mine is absolute and deep. > > > > > > > > The third rule is never talk about fight club. Wait a second, that is > > > > supposed to be the first rule, sorry! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Curtis, my responses below: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know what someone in CC, GC, or UC perceives, or > > > > > > > > doesn't? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same way I know what anyone does, by what they express. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems like you, Curtis and Vaj enjoy wasting your time > > > > > > > > speculating about self realization, without any attempt to > > > > > > > > accomplish it yourselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am self realized. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which state of consciousness please (CC, GC, UC)? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we want to see your papers, Herr Curtis! There are some reported > > > > > hoodlums and lower rogue elements masquerading as self-realized > > > > > beings. We have orders to shoot these frauds on sight. > > > > > > > > > > Remember Herr Curtis, you can't simply bask in the joy of your own > > > > > existence. You must be certified to do so. And enjoying life without > > > > > proper papers and titles, impossible! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If you are indeed self realized, this should be a gimme for you. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
