--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "llundrub" <llundrub@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You just seem angry to me. > > > > > > > > -----Rather petulant and childish to me.,___ > > > > > > Surprisingly so. It's unlike Jim to be this angry. > > > He must have had a twist in his panties yesterday. > > > > > The other remark I have about my challenges to you and Vaj yesterday > > was that here you sit day after day after day, challenging much of > > what TM is and who Maharishi is, and all who respond do so in the > > context of evaluating TM and Maharishi. > > > > So yesterday, understanding that I apply merciless rigor to TM and > > Maharishi and the TMO with regard to my acceptance or not of them, I > > decided "why should Turq and Vaj be getting a free ride out of all > > of this?" Why not apply the same rigor and scrutiny to their > > practices as I do to my own? > > > > And the results were very eye opening, you True Believers > > you!...Lol! :-) > > Please produce anything in either my posts of Vaj's > that sounded "True Believer" like to you. My entire > exchange with you yesterday was to help you realize > how much of a solipsist you are -- you just make > pronouncements, as if the fact that you have come > to believe something makes it an actual fact.
You have your opinions and I have mine. I thought we had cleared that up yesterday. I will continue to think of both you and Vaj as True Believers, which I define as those willing to be less critical of their own beliefs than they are those of others. Tibetan Buddhism ain't all its cracked up to be. *IMO*.
