--- 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. >>
No she doesn't, she is objective and consistent, and used laterel and critical thinking demonstrating a high level of integration of intellect and its foundation. It is her opponent that comes off as having a twisted, poison-mongering, perverted, and irrational mind. He seems to be a TB for unfettered noxious and gaseous gossip. OffWorld <Sure makes lurkers want to invest > their time and money (especially money) into TM, eh? > > Thank goodness there are other posters here like Tom > and Rick and Vaj 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/
