--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> [I wrote:] > > Not sure why that he was INTO TM at one time should > > rebut the idea that he's an anti-TMer *now*. > > Point taken. But I think most teachers have a soft spot for TM, the > old days, MMY at his peak, etc. So it can be a mixed bag. The soft > spot -- and the critiques.
In my observation, no such "soft spot" exists for Vaj. Indeed, I think that may be one of the primary identifiers of the anti-TMer: obvious hostility unmoderated by any "soft spots"; and a tendency always to put forward the worst possible interpretation of deeds and motives with little or no basis. <snip> > We may differ a bit on what "anti-TM" means. Perhaps it applies to > Vaj maybe not. When I began this theme, I think I was referring to > "TM-hater" which i don't think applies to any on the list at the > moment. You clarified, I think, that you have not used that term. Right. My equivalent would be "rabid anti-TMer." Vaj doesn't *quite* meet my criteria for that designation, but he's close. (It's not impossible I may have used that variant in the past for Vaj and/or Barry, but as long as we're being precise about categories, we should probably reserve that one for the real nutjobs.) <snip> > For example, he implied the totally bonkers poistion that some > alleged parallel between fundamental and christian fundamentalism > in and of itself makes Spraig and you TM fundamentalists. Heehee. I just deconstructed that part of the exchange myself, before reading this post--apparently unnecessarily, as you do seem to get it. <snip> > > It's fine to draw a moral equivalence where reciprocal > > "hurling of labels" is concerned, but not if you neglect > > to point out where it *starts*. > > More important, IMO, where it ends. To me its like what is the first > car on the freeway. It can't be determined, there is always another > one ahead of you. Or perhaps like a tissue box, pull one and there > is always another. Or any long term conflict. Each side can make a > case that the other started it. Long ago. Yeah, but that isn't what I'm referring to--I mean with whom it starts with regard to an ongoing discussion. > But in the peaceful, intervals, I do see some start something. Throw > out uncalled for barbs. They "started" it - the current battle -- > not necessariluy IT -- the 10 year war. I have found in life, the > best way to diffuse such is to "let it go", turn the other check > so to speak. Sorry, I'm not into "turning the other cheek" where deliberate misrepresentation is concerned. <snip> > > My sense of Vaj (and Barry) is that the only reason > > they're on this forum (and previously on alt.m.t) is > > because they want a platform from which to denounce > > TM/MMY/the TMO. There are plenty of other forums on > > which they could discuss the spiritual paths they're > > on now with a much more receptive, and in many cases > > even more knowledgeable, group of participants. > > People all have their reasons. I know when people have suggested > why I am here, it is so odd and bizzare -- one has to guess > projection -- that I am quite catious in imputing others' motives > for a particular psot, or for being here. I think it's a lot less clear with you than with Vaj and Barry. *I* would be cautious imputing motives to you. But it seems to me there are excellent *logical* reasons for what I impute to Vaj and Barry above. 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/
