--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 9, 2006, at 1:01 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > "Second, of course, "anti-TMer" is an entirely > > legitimate label for those who, like Barry and Vaj > > and Curtis, routinely attack the TMO, MMY, and TMers > > (individually or as a group)." > > > > > > Since I have been on this group I have heard far more criticism > > coming from others, some of whom practice TM. >
Vaj writes a post that is pathognomonic of the anti-TMer: > This is my observation as well. It's actually quite bizarre to see-- > the "defenders of the faith" end up being perfect reasons *not* to > start TM. In fact they may be part of the decline, esp. since > there are other outlets now (some more detailed and fuller paths) > of manasika japa, sans canned checking routines and insane prices > for basic meditation instruction. And this such an *old* ploy, an attempt to intimidate the critics of the anti-TMers into shutting up when the anti-TMers can't respond to their criticisms. > > Other than responding to > > things others have put up I have not initiated any criticisms of > > TM. This designation of "anti-Tmer" is a stupid label in a group > > where most of the posters couldn't get into the dome. > > It's also stupid because I'm sure many of us don't see TM as a bad > thing or as a bad meditation technique, but not merely as a 'be > all and end all' that it is marketed as. And this is a blatant example of the lack of integrity of the anti-TMers. Those who follow Vaj's posts know how unremittingly vicious he is toward MMY, the TMO, and TMers. A little lip service now and then that "TM isn't a bad thing" doesn't somehow neutralize his attacks or make him not an anti-TMer. <snip> > > If you really cared > > about the movement you would encourage them to correct stupid > > misleading charts instead of defending their stupid misleading > > charts. > > You know it's funny how fundamentalists defend their religions. Yes, it's funny, but it's not applicable here, since I'm not a fundamentalist and TM isn't a religion. Yet another smear that defines Vaj unequivocally as an anti-TMer. > Fundie X-tians will quote scripture and verse after verse after > verse. TM fundies cite pseudoscience, use charts of questionable > veracity and quote scientific research. At a certain point I > realized this was the same phenomenon. But failed completely to make the distinction between TM fundies and TMers who are critical of the pseudoscience and of the exaggerated claims about the research, such as Lawson and myself. Again: This very post, in which Vaj attempts to dismiss the notion that he could possibly be an anti-TMer while attacking the TMers who criticize him, *defines* him as an anti-TMer. This is the paradigm. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/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/
