TM practice is dying off thank God, and this spurt created by D Lynch and his 
TM shill buddies is going to be short lived.

As to your assertion that people try to "distort it and criticize it, simply 
because TM is a unique form of meditation, that works" is complete bullshit. 
People criticize it because it doesn't and has never delivered what Huckster 
Marshy promised in so many ways. And the fact that is packaged and delivered 
and promoted by what has become a bona fide cult - crowns, robes and fear of 
south facing entrances, anyone?




________________________________
 From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" <doctordumb...@rocketmail.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:21 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Inner Peace
 


  
You are inadvertently outlining the strengths of TM. It has been around for 50 
years, and counting, despite attempts to distort it and criticize it, simply 
because TM is a unique form of meditation, that works. 

Any time there is a new technology introduced, there are the naysayers who 
proclaim it too costly, too crazy, or just plain useless. Just as with 
electricity, the automobile, and the cell phone, TM is here to stay. 

I know its kind of a tough pill to swallow, recognizing that the technique is 
not only robust, but continues to grow as well. Perhaps you want to work on 
your attachment to these ideas of TM being bad and wrong, while at the same 
time, recognizing its inevitable global growth.

I am not saying you have to like it, but you may as well recognize the reality 
of it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A beautifully written article about TM and the race to
> > > > inner space.
> > > 
> > > Funny how she gets so many of her facts wrong, isn't it?
> > > You'd almost think she'd learned TM from some independent
> > > who'd gone *way* off the range. Among other things, 
> > > according to her, her teacher gave out the mantras at the
> > > end of the course, as a "graduation ceremony," and he wore
> > > a robe during the initiations.
> > 
> > It's the first law of journalism: Never let the facts get in
> > the way of a good story.
> 
> I think you're getting caught up in The Corrector's
> nitpicking and attempts to present the author of this
> piece in a bad light, and as having malevolent intent.
> She (the author), after all, introduces it as a 
> remembrance of something that happened (and that
> she was underwhelmed by) *ten years earlier*. It is
> natural that she might remember a few things hazily
> or inaccurately. As for the "end of the course" thang,
> that is how a number of people I've taught thought of
> the two introductory lectures, as "the course," the
> rest being (for them) something else, maybe the part
> where they actually got taught something that cost
> money. :-) This author may have thought similarly. 
> 
> As for the teacher wearing a robe, I have no explan-
> ations except that 1) she might have memory problems,
> 2) she might be embellishing things for effect, 3)
> she might have been dealing with one of the TM teacher
> nutcases I often had to deal with as a State Coordin-
> ator, who really *did* wear robes and sit on thrones,
> or 4) she might have been dealing with a TM teacher
> similar to Harold Bloomfeld, who was dressed in a 
> robe because he was waiting for the drugs he'd 
> slipped her to take effect so that he could molest
> her. :-)
> 
> Anything is possible. The points of the article are
> sound, and valid -- TM is *hugely* overpriced, and
> simply not worth the price, TM is hyped as special
> and unique when it is anything but, and TM figures
> like MMY and David Lynch are *far* from as admirable
> as the TMO would like them to be. 
> 
> Just as the author may have skewed things a little 
> to make her point, Judy skews things in her way to
> make the author seem malevolent. Anything rather
> than accept the fact that for most people, the
> author's piece strikes a resonance, and captures
> how insanely WEIRD TM and all the hoopla surrounding
> how it is taught are. Judy is so far from that exper-
> ience that she can't remember how WEIRD it all is;
> the author of this piece is not.
>


 

Reply via email to