--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are times when being On The Road and thus > unable to check FFL regularly is a real blessing. > I've been back in Santa Fe, gazing at beautiful > sunsets and sunrises (enjoying one of the latter > at this very moment, outside the windows of this > WiFi cafe), having wonderful conversations with > wonderful people who truly enjoy life and its > spiritual qualities, even if they're not on a > formal spiritual path. > > And then I come here, and encounter this as the > second post I read. > > What a recommendation for the spiritual path! Over > 30 years on the path that she and many others con- > sider the "fastest, most effective pathway to > enlightenment," and this representative of that > path comes off like a bitter old woman who has > so little going on in her life that her idea of > fun is insulting people and giving them a hard time > on the Internet. Sure makes lurkers want to invest > their time and money (especially money) into TM, eh?
In any other context than dumping on me or another committed TMer (as I've observed before in similar contexts), Barry would insist that behavior is not an indication of spiritual development. But when he's particularly unhappy with the way his life is going and needs to discharge some of his distress, he "forgets" this principle in order to be able to craft a putdown of a TMer. <snip> > P.S. In your mind, contrast the innocence and bright- > ness and joy of the song that sparked this discussion > with the state of attention manifested by this TM > True Believer. Shocking, isn't it? Perhaps if, instead of this being the second post you read and then felt moved to comment on, you had gone back and first absorbed the progression and context, you would have seen that it was the anti-True Believer who introduced and perpetuated the ugliness. You would also have seen that the anti-TB manifested the qualities you and he and others of your ilk are pleased to attribute to TBs to a far greater extent than the TB you're dumping on. Not that seeing these things would have moved you to make a different type of comment that actually reflected the nature of the discussion, of course. Speaking of cognitive dissonance... > Thank goodness there are other posters here like Tom > and Rick and Vaj Vaj being the anti-TB I'm referring to above, of course--the one who claimed that Paul having visited MMY in Vlodrop was just "unfounded rumor" and "desperate disinformation," and who, presented with evidence to the contrary, repeatedly attempted to distort that evidence to make it conform to his anti-TB agenda. And we all know what a brilliant example of "the spiritual life" Tom represents. Innocence and brightness and joy personified. From Tom's latest: "Should you wish to make an ass out of yourself by responding, do it amongst yourself. I don't read FFL and I have the fools' email addresses blocked. I have filters set up with my ISP such that if you try to do an end run by sending me something nasty from another email address, your email will get trashed when it hits my ISP. Besides that, may God bless and keep you." and Dr. Pete and occasionally Kirk > and a few others who really *do* seem to have a clue > as to what constitutes a spiritual life. It makes > having to don one's hipboots before wading through > the shit almost worthwhile. :-) > > Unc > > P.S. In your mind, contrast the innocence and bright- > ness and joy of the song that sparked this discussion > with the state of attention manifested by this TM > True Believer. Shocking, isn't it? > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 2, 2005, at 2:21 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > >>> That doesn't mean he's right, of course, but it does > > > >>> strongly suggest it's what he believes. > > > >>> > > > >>> Hey, maybe Paul is a True Believer! > > > > > > > > At this point, your initial attempt to claim Paul had > > > > "seen the light" and was no longer an admirer of MMY > > > > having crashed and burned rather spectacularly, your > > > > agenda would be a lot better served by doing a 180 and > > > > scorning Paul as a TB. > > > > > > Uh, I didn't write that. > > > > No, dimwit, I did. Then I elaborated on it. > > > > > >>> (And maybe the notion of "spiritual incest" is a crock > > > >>> to begin with, for reasons I've discussed extensively > > > >>> elsewhere, to no response from Vaj.) > > > >> > > > >> If you have a hard time with the phrase, you should take it up > > > >> with the spiritual abuse groups who use the phrase. I did not > > > >> invent the phrase "spiritual incest", so what am I to respond > to? > > > >> Your denial or your confusion? > > > > > > > > I've taken it up with you because you so obviously > > > > wholeheartedly approve of it, having used it to > > > > justify labeling MMY a "pervert." > > > > > > > > Who invented the phrase is irrelevant. It's a nitwit > > > > notion, for reasons I've gone into at some length, as > > > > noted. And unfortunately you won't be able to show > > > > either denial or confusion in what I wrote. > > > > > > Of course it's not a nitwit notion. You've obviously not met any > > > of the men and women who were victims of spiritual incest. Very > > > sad either way. > > > > Of course it *is* a nitwit notion, for the reasons I > > went into at length on alt.m.t, and which, as I've > > already pointed out, you are obviously completely > > unable to deal with. Having met "victims" of sexual > > exploitation by spiritual teachers would not somehow > > make the notion more reasonable. > > > > > > (Just BTW, Vaj, your judicious snipping technique > > > > may work to obscure context when you're having an > > > > exchange with someone who gets FFL by email; but > > > > you should really eschew it with those who read and > > > > respond on the Web site, who can easily go back and > > > > restore what you snipped from the earlier post. > > > > Makes you look, you know, kinda shifty.) > > > > > > <sigh> Get a life Judy, you obviously haven't a clue. Please see > > > the above example of your own falacious snipping! > > > > And where would that be, pray tell? You mean the part > > at the top where you mistakenly assumed (or claimed to > > have assumed) *I* mistakenly thought I was quoting you? > > > > Speaking of cluelessness... > > > > For the record, here's what you snipped (without any > > indication you had done so) from the post you were > > responding to: > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2005, at 11:27 AM, authfriend wrote: > > [Vaj wrote, then snipped:] > > > > > Maybe you're right and he did not forgive the spiritual > > > > > incest which took place. > > > > > > > > Or maybe he didn't think there had been any, given that > > > > he has been willing to state in public, on national > > > > television, that MMY wasn't into "chicks." He didn't > > > > have to say that; he wasn't *asked* about it by Charlie > > > > Rose. He volunteered it, in the course of explaining > > > > why he felt MMY was "the real thing" (also something he > > > > volunteered). > > > > > > Without asking P., we cannot say. I take it to mean he is a monk, > > > at least most of the time. > > > > He was comparing MMY to "fake" gurus--other monks, or > > spiritual teachers from whom one would expect chastity. > > In that context, obviously he was referring to hanky- > > panky with women of the sort MMY has been accused of: > > > > "And he gave us his book, the great wise man, gave us his book, > > because he was one of the ones that wasn't a fake. There were a lot > > of them around that time who were into Rolls Royces and chicks. And > > he wasn't one of them." > > > > Couldn't be a much clearer statement of Paul's belief > > that the accusations were false. That you would suggest > > otherwise is yet more confirmation of your problem with > > objectivity (or maybe just with honesty). > > > > As I said, Paul didn't "forgive" MMY because he didn't > > think there was anything *to* forgive. > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
