--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 9, 2006, at 8:27 PM, new.morning wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > >> > >> 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. At a certain time when the > >> naivete was high on "things eastern" and there were not a lot of > >> alternatives, this was palatable. Now it's simply silly.
> > Thats why labeling, particualry incorrect labeling, is simply silly. > > Someone calls someone a True Beleiver. As I have observed, the labels > > are often incorrect. Regardless, when labels are hurled, particualry > > pejorative and/or false ones, a barrage of labels are often hurled > > back. Silly again. But then each side gets really entrenched. > > Defending positions. Then it gets really silly. > It's a term I use fairly infrequently, and usually for brevity's > sake. I realize some people have the time or interest to write long > responses or relentless and endless posting on topics, I generally do > not have such an interest. It seems a waste of time. I prefer > conciseness. Hardly an excuse for falseness. Better to be concise and true than concise and false. > I've certainly written little on this current topic, Not to my memory, but you have your memory. > so > this is a rather specious claim on your part. Whether you make a false and specious statement once or 1000 times, its still false and specious. > > For example, as I have stated, IMO people like Judy, Vaj, Shemp, etc > > do not fit the TB mold. In so many ways. To call them TB's is either > > quite weak thinking or purposefully inflamatory. > > >> You know it's funny how fundamentalists defend their religions. > >> 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. > > > > There you go again. No current regular posters are "fundamentalists", > > parallel to "Fundie X-tians", "TM fundies". A true fundamentalist is a > > sight to behold. Someone who believes literally that the universe was > > created 6000 years ago and Eve came out of Adams rib. While I don't > > always agree with Judy, Spraig, etc, they clearly are thinking, > > quetioning entities, not bound by the dictates of some literal > > interpretation of anceint scripture. In your view, do you think either > > holds a literalist view on the Laws of Manu or the Puranas? > You are mistaking a literalist for a fundamentalist. First seach site, first paragraph: In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, through literal interpretation of religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism OK. I am open to you substantiating non-literalist fundmentalists as a a movement of substance, and not just something in your mind . Make your case. > Not all > fundamentalists are literalists, but many are. In this instance let > me be a little more precise: TM Fundamentalism is strict maintenance > of fundamental doctrines of the ideology of TM, in this case TM, SCI, > Maharishi's Vedic Science and other TM doctrine, including the > extensive use of a scientific mythos and reliance on scientific > jargon. This may often take the form of pseudoscientific literature > and diagrams used as marketing PR and marketing spin ("TM tracts"). OK. And I know some such TM fundamentals per your definition. I cited some in a recent post. Judy and Spraig do not fit that profile. To repeatedly say they are is false and inflamatory. > > >> At a certain point I realized > >> this was the same phenomenon. > > > > And you thought weakly. > > See the above. These are very parallel phenomenon but they are not > identical phenomenon. This similarity becomes even more apparent when > you actually see the political parties and streams of thought Mahesh > Varma is associated with in his native country. It is also helpful to > understand the parallels (and differences) between Vedic Science and > Creation Science. These *are* parallel movements. While not accepting your premise outright, lets assume it is true. How does that possibly make Spraig or Judy TM fundamentalists. Its a non-sequitur supreme. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/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/
