I wonder what would work for those 99% then?

Osho Rajneesh wrote about dozens of techniques giving the 
sadaka the option to choose what suits him.  Maharishi 
didn't give people that variety.  In the long run that hurt 
the people who were in the TM mov't.
 
I think this uni-dimensional monochrome approach of 
Maharishi really pissed off Vaj.
 
 
 
From: cardemaister <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:51 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
Chivukula


 
  Vaj doesn't seem to realize, that for about 99 percent of
human beans, for instance "advaitic" meditation techniques
are as useless as, say, reading Kaama-suutra is for e.g.
kindergarten kids...LoL!




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason <jedi_spock@...> wrote:
>
>  
>  
> Hey Vaj, the Buddha boy.  Atleast tell Robin which year you 
> did your TTC.
> 
> You seem to be more keen to bullshit with him than tell him 
> certain basic facts about your association with TM.
>  
>  
>  
> From: maskedzebra <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:44 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
> Chivukula
> 
> 
> 
> Robin: It is the very same with Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi Mahesh 
> Yogi, and your status as a former TM initiator.
> 
> Vaj: These types of disconnects we call "non sequiturs" (note: this is 
> different from a Steinian "non sequitur", which is when a person cannot 
> understand an implication, often due to not adhering the linear laws of 
> "Flatland").
> 
> Robin2: "Chieftain Iffucan of Azcan in caftan/ Of tan and henna hackles, 
> halt!/ Damned universal cock, as if the sun/ Was blackamoor to bear your 
> blazing tail./ Fat! Fat! Fat! Fat! I am the personal./ Your world is you. I 
> am my world./ You ten-foot poet among inchlings. Fat!/ Begone! An inchling 
> bristles in these pines,/ Bristles, and points their Appalachian tangs,/ And 
> fears not portly Azcan nor his hoos." [WS]
> 
> Robin: But more than this, Vaj: you cannot even summon up the bluff and 
> bravado and appropriate subjective responseâ€"that defines us as human 
> beingsâ€"in the face of these challenges to the veracity of your claims. You 
> don't even defend yourself. This is telling. [But this no-defence is itself 
> no defence: don't pull the supreme disinterestedness argument here, Vaj: you 
> would be a total idiot to do this. But if you must, go ahead. You can tell me 
> you are Guru Dev's grandson, and I would have to assign to this claim the 
> same status as I would if you claim you are not defending yourself here 
> because of some imperturbable state of spiritual equilibrium.]
>

Reply via email to