Since I agree with the TMO requirement to keep mantras private, I really shouldn't be doing this. However I have decided for my last post this week to reveal Barry's private mantra. He may try to deny it, but here it is:
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > I guess you have to ask yourself Barry, was your purpose > > to actually "warn" Bill, or to slam the other three. > > I might just as easily turn that question on you. > Weren't you more interested in slamming me in post- > ing what you did than in anything else? > > I ask because another way of responding would have > been to say, unequivocably, "Bill, to counter what > Barry (Turq) says, I completely believe that Jim, > Ravi, and Robin (and Rory, if you care to throw > him into the mix) are what they claim to be, fully > enlightened." Wouldn't that have been a more graceful > and more helpful way to respond? > > My prediction is that you won't do this, nor will > much of anyone else, except for the four people them- > selves and maybe Nabby, who no one believes about much > of anything anyway. > > Instead you (and others, especially starting Friday > evening when the Post Count rolls over to a new week) > will spend your energies trying to demonize me for > simply making a point. > > That point was that Bill, a relative newcomer to both > TM and FFL, seemed to believe without reservation that > all of these people were enlightened, *just because > they said they were*. I was hoping to make the point > to him that a little more discrimination might be in > order. > > You -- and others here -- could help him develop that > discrimination, if what you are interested in is his > welfare. If, in fact, you believe that I am wrong, and > that Jim, Ravi, and Robin are enlightened (according > to Maharishi's definition of enlightenment, that is -- > at the very least CC, and several of them have claimed > to be in or have been in UC as well), step up, take > your balls in your hand, and SAY SO. > > If you believe this and don't SAY SO, I think you're > kind of spineless. If you believe the opposite -- that > they are *not* enlightened -- and don't SAY SO, I think > you're kinda spineless. > > Same with the other folks here. Your call. > > My prediction is that almost no one will take a stand > one way or another. > > But the same people who don't have balls enough to say > whether they believe these guys are enlightened will > spend a lot of energy and a lot of posts badmouthing > me for bringing up the elephant in the room. > > Priorities. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > What Bob said, Bill. Welcome, but watch your back. > > > > > > One thing I should suggest to you -- both on Fairfield > > > Life and in real life -- is to not believe that someone > > > is enlightened just because they claim to be. Going that > > > route is likely to cost you money and heartbreak. > > > > > > For example, on this forum we currently have three people > > > who you seem to have bought into as being enlightened -- > > > Jim Flanegin (whynotnow), Ravi, and Robin (maskedzebra). > > > My bet is that other than each other (they tend to support > > > each others' delusions IMO), you can't find more than a > > > handful of people on this forum who actually BELIEVE > > > that any of them are enlightened. > > > > > > It's not that we think they're lying (except for Ravi, who > > > has admitted several times that he was lying to Rick in > > > the interview he did with him for BATGAP); we think they > > > are a tad delusional. Those of us who think this base it > > > on their real-life behavior on this forum, juxtaposed to > > > their claims of supposed higher states of consciousness. > > > It's the "walk the walk" vs. the "talk the talk" thang. > > > > > > Look into it for yourself, and make your own decisions. > > > I would suggest, for all three, using the Yahoo website's > > > Advanced Search engine and looking up some of their > > > earliest posts on this forum. That's where all three of > > > them tended to freak out and display the anger and > > > reactive behavior that convinces us disbelievers that > > > they are delusional rather than enlightened. For the > > > poster who now calls himself whynotnow, you should also > > > look up his posts under several other names, for example, > > > jim_flanegin and enlightened_dawn11 (during the period > > > that Jim was pretending to be female). Just sayin'. > > > > > > I am NOT saying that there might not be truly enlightened > > > people out there. I am NOT saying that there might be one > > > or two of them who got there as the result of TM. But I > > > am saying that I personally don't believe that either > > > whynotnow, Ravi, or MZ fall into that category. And I > > > don't think I'm alone here in believing this. I suspect, > > > in fact, that more people on this forum consider them > > > delusional than consider them enlightened. > > > > > > Just thought you should hear this, since you seemed to be > > > buying everything they say as if it were gospel. It's not. > > > It's opinion. So is what I say in this post. Do your own > > > research and come to your own opinion. > > > > > >
