--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> THINGS TMers BELIEVE, Volume II (6 February 2007)
>
> Again, the beliefs of long-term TMers (20 to 35+ years
> of daily TM practice), in *their own words*, as repre-
> sented by what they said in the posts to which they
> replied on one Internet forum during the last two and
> a half days (since the posting of Volume I).
>
> And again, I post the quotes without attribution,
> because in my opinion the quotes and their authors
> are pretty much interchangeable in the ways in which
> they represent common TMer mindsets and states of
> attention. I apologize for the lack of context, but
> the challenge of collecting the quotes while holding
> down a full-time job was taxing enough. If you are
> interested in determining the author of any of the
> quotes, and the context in which he or she wrote the
> quote, please use Yahoo's 'Advanced Search' feature
> on the Web version of this forum:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/msearch_adv
>
> In general, the people being talked about disparagingly
> below are those who have dared to be critical of TM,
> the TM organization, and/or Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on
> this forum in the past. Other than occasional comments
> to explain context or who or what is being discussed,
> none of the words below are mine. And I make no comment
> on any of these quotes, other than having chosen them
> for inclusion here. The reader is free to draw his or
> her own conclusions.
>
> ******************************************************
>
> "S [TM critic} has created a big problem for himself,
> prematurely taking on the nickname 'V', making him
> resistant to any suggestion that he has more to learn.
> It is his problem, and no matter how much he argues
> with himself on this forum, not likely to resolve
> itself soon. The stupidity of his small self encases
> him like barbed wire."
>
> Same person: "Jewish proverb: 'Listen to your enemy,
> for God is talking.'"
>
> Replying to: "...it's well known that any meditation
> that uses an object will, by it's very nature, require
> some subtle effort since they all rely on some kind of
> technique." -- "It's well known, save to those of us who
> were content to keep to our original practice, rather
> than seek something 'better.'"
>
> "V [TM critic] has an agenda or is confused, or both.
> I do not understand why anyone bothers to answer him."
>
> "What is sad is that some unestablished souls, newcomers
> on the Path, could be confused by the negativity [on this
> forum]. Though I think they judge the Path by experience
> more than rubbish written on forums like this."
>
> "99% of what B [TM critic] says in these rants is due to
> his coffee addiction, and shouldn't be taken seriously.
> He has over a decade's worth of empty experience in
> which he has learned to craft an argument on-line
> (applause for the little boy!). He adds his coffee
> addiction to this and spins many fanciful and empty
> stories."
>
> Same person: "'Am I not destroying my enemies when I make
> friends of them?' -Abraham Lincoln"
>
> "This fellow [TM critic] has an agenda. To sow dissention,
> perhaps he is making a buck or two on this. He is not
> really dangerous to anyone but himself because his
> motivs are so obvious."
>
> "From your many misdescriptions of TM, V [TM critic], you
> couldn't have 'abandoned' the original practice because
> you were never practicing TM to begin with, but rather
> your misunderstanding of it."
>
> "That's right. But fellows like 'V' [TM critic] will never
> get this. People like him will always try to complicate,
> sow dissention. Their world is simple in the sense of; we
> know what we have but not what we will get. They hate the
> whole idea of self-realization. Self realized ? Without
> the church, without the Government ? No Sir !"
>
> Regarding a purported quote by Maharishi saying that TM
> was not completely effortless: "Who the hell knows? We
> can't possibly tell without context. R can't provide a
> verbatim transcript, and we can't just accept without
> question his interpretation of a long-ago lecture illus-
> trated by a quote that has no meaning out of context."
>
> And in a followup, about that same quote: "*Of course*
> there was a context. He didn't just sit there and suddenly
> come up with the quote and then start talking about
> something completely different. 'A lecture about the
> effortlessness of TM' is nowhere near adequate context to
> fathom the meaning of the quote. Don't you know what
> 'context' means?"
>
> "...former TMers like V [TM critic] disdainfully insist that
> there's effort involved [in TM] and that TMers are lying
> about it, while getting a bunch of things about what MMY
> teaches disastrously, unequivocally wrong, demonstrating
> that they don't know what the hell they're talking about."
>
> "So do you and B [TM critics] have the guts to deviate from
> your 'TMers are just mindlessly repeating the dogma they've
> been taught' tape loop and incorporate the possibility that
> they're telling you what their personal experience is?"
>
> "This V [TM critic] is lost in his own delusion and agenda.
> He does not digest what you write, nor does he want to.
> According to L, fellows like him might well be evicted to a
> more suitable place by our Space Brothers, where he will be
> amongst fellowmen, a place where negativity will abound.
> He is begging for it to happen."
>
> "Any TMer who worries about 'trying to GET to samadhi'
> is OFF THE PROGRAM."
>
> "V [TM critic], you're right! (Hindusism IS different than
> Buddhism) [Tibetan teacher]'s teachings are ineffective,
> since they operate only in the 25% highest level of the
> subtle planes. TM operates on all levels, and the Transcendent.
> Your statement that physical purification is unimportant
> is a feeble attempt to obfuscate the issues; out of
> jealously in regard to MMY's brilliant, pioneering ideas
> in the topic of stress release, and due to the fact that
> [Tibetan teacher]'s techniques are solely 'subtle body'
> techniques, having little impact on the physical."
>
> "Even more fascinating, to me at least, is someone like
> you who hasn't taught or practiced TM in decades and who
> still considers himself an authority on the subject. Is
> it coffee, or full blown delusion speaking fer ya? Where
> do you get off on calling others on their supposed trips
> when you are so out of it?"
>
> "I can see you talk to yourself as you type and, once
> every thirty seconds or so, wipe your spit off the screen."
>
> A long-term TM practioner who considers himself to be
> fully Self Realized, on having so many of his quotes
> included here: "You are adept at making truth into lies."
>
> The same fully Self Realized person: "As to my asking
> questions regarding being clueless, this tells me that
> you are not established in Self realization, because you
> see it as a static state, as someone in waking state,
> i.e. bondage, would."
>
> Same Self Realized individual: "Fifty bucks says he [TM
> critic] NEVER EVER quotes the recent posts from TT and A
> that showed him to be who he really is! LOL! So its a
> very selective showing by Detective Tantrum of FFL."
>
> In response to: "If MMY really believes in the ability
> of the ME ["Maharishi Effect"] to inflence the stock
> market, why doesn't he take advantage of market trends
> by manipulating the numbers attending his assemblies?"
> -- "Because Maharishi is not in it for the money."
>
> "Ha-Ha! I just realized that you have definite criteria
> that you ascribe to Self realized beings! I can assume
> that the selective posts you will be quoting from me go
> counter to this list of criteria! You are making my day!
> Please, B [TM critic], let's see THE LIST! LOL!!!!!!!!!!
> -->THE LIST<-- Did anyone else catch this? Unbelievable.
> Hey B, should I change what I say so that I appear Realized
> to you? How about what I wear? Any suggestions? I wouldn't
> want to appear un-Realized, especially to you! LOL!
> Please share that list of TMer actions or whatever soon,
> so that we will all know to shy away from such
> 'UNENLIGHTENED' actions!!! Man, I'm cracking myself up..."
>
> Trying to demonize a TM critic: "He's made 27 posts in
> about a day and a half." Then, a few minutes later:
> "Before B goes on a counting binge of his own, my total
> for the same period was 36--but that's pretty standard
> for me."
>
> Posted by the Self Realized person: "Yes V [TM critic],
> continue to obscure Reality with lots of intellectualizing
> and nitpicking...I can't think of much that is less
> practical than that...however, to each his own."
>
> An exchange between two TMers about a TM critic, after
> both had just written several posts each in a thirty
> minute period demonizing him and calling him names:
> -- "What do you think it is that makes B assume that
> anyone who challenges him is doing so because what he's
> said makes them 'uptight'?"
> -- "Paranoia, I suppose."
>
> "Think you can psychoanalyze me do you T [TM critic]. You
> will get lost and terrified to death in the labiryth that
> will engulf you if you venture into the realm. My reaction
> was to do with the clear lack of rational thought and real-
> world experience connected to the statement that immediately
> preceded the word 'Bull' [the entire contents of his previous
> post]. Your Dalai Lama trip is just silly. The Dalai Lama is
> not trying to create a sea-change in the subtle structure
> of world consciousness. He is out to meet people and smile
> a lot and wave the peace sign. Big deal. Try meeting the
> Pope, see how far you get."
>
> Same person: "I think people like you that seek out personal
> attention from a teacher are like spoilt children. I couldn't
> care less about it, because it is the TECHNIQUE and knowledge
> that counts. If it is not, then Maharishi's whole philosophy
> is wrong. Therefore, he does not emphasise personal attention
> as being important."
>
> "Well, he's [TM critic] feeling very besieged right now,
> which freaks him out, so he has to cut his 'enemies' down
> to size in his own mind. He does that by imagining that
> they're 'uptight' because whatever he said was so
> threatening to them, rather than acknowledging to himself
> that they're laughing at him because he's such a fool,
> which would be unendurable. He makes himself feel more
> powerful that way."
>
> "Oddly, through his persistence B [TM critic] has again
> become a teacher of TM. Perhaps not in the way he was
> originally instructed to do, but still we ought to feel
> good that the knowledge of TM is being spread, in whatever
> form. Thanks also to those who post the oddly named "TM
> Free Blog" all about TM and Maharishi. Even if we are
> quoted out of context, there are probably those people
> where B will post these quotes who's curiousity will be
> piqued, and they will find legitimate sites of TM
> information. I know when my mind has been thirsty for
> information, I have eventually found what I have been
> looking for, no matter how it appeared initially. As the
> expression goes, 'there is no such thing as bad publicity.'"
>
> To a TM critic he's never met or seen: "Moving images of
> frothing old men with their hair on end manically hacking
> away on a keyboard with scary organ music in the background
> may scare youngsters."
>
> "V {TM critic] isn't intellectualizing - he's just
> bullshitting. By the evidence fwd by himself on this
> list V really doesn't know what TM is about. Even by
> rhetorical standards his post is just bs. He is
> criticizing a teaching he knows nothing about by
> sniping at a second hand reference to a post offering
> a brief summary of what Maharishi ones said on a tape.
> It's just plain silly draped in a thick layer of
> pompous-ness."
>
> On being told that his quotes were being posted to even
> more forums than before: "Great ! Can't wait to see my
> pearls of wisdom, my sword of justice, pop up everywhere."
>
> "Given that it's impossble to innocently and seriously
> discuss TM related issues on this forum without risking
> being assaulted by Illuminatis, Freemasons, Satanists,
> Christian fundamentalists, etc my question is: where do
> people who (1) regularly practice TM, and (2) are quite
> happy with it, go to yell at each other?"
>
Thanks for compiling this. Looks good. Where else is it posted?
