--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> From the perspective of a non-TM teacher, who has > > never lived fulltime, the whole structure of the programs I lived in > > were over your chosen board. > > I don't know what "over your chosen board" means. > The way you chose to approach the movement and its programs. <snip> > You are > > trying to discredit my participation in the movement, > > No more than you are! I have changed my perspective on my experiences. You are attempting to characterize my experiences as an improper understanding of MMY's teaching while I was in the movement, which is comical because only one of us was actually certified as a spokesperson for his teaching. By applying the standard and culture of your part-time non teaching status to my own fulltime experiences, you are just revealing how little you know about MMY full teaching. > <snip> > > Judy: What I was pointing out by quoting what you > > told the D.C. City Paper was (a) that you went > > *way* overboard, embellishing your program with > > all kinds of things that had nothing to do with > > what MMY teaches; and (b) that the tone in which > > you described all this very clearly indicated > > that you yourself found it troubling that you > > had gone to these extreme lengths to "get a buzz." > > > > Me: They had nothing to with what MMY taught YOU. > > Or what he taught you, as you go on to confirm: > > My use of all > > those things were recommended by MMY's top leaders to me > > personally. This included Nandkashore, my TTC phase III course > > leader and the Indian movement leader who actually got me the deer > > skin in India. So your instructions in the movement all came from MMY himself? Mine came mostly from his designated representatives where were authorized to present his teaching. They were not only trusted to do so, challenging them on their authority to present MMY's teaching would have gotten me booted out. > > (Just out of curiosity, were these recommendations > something they told you about on their own, or did > you *ask* what more you could be doing to get your > "buzz"?) They woke me up in the middle of the night and forced me to buy a deerskin against my will. That is how it works when you are fulltime and discussing your program with Nandkashore and your TTC course leaders. I have no idea what distinction you are driving at but I'm pretty sure it is not out of "curiosity". Yo have seem to have no capacity to understand how a fulltime monk in the movement thinks or the teachings of MMY that apply to that lifestyle. > > but the > > problem is that you didn't know me then. So you use snippets > > of a reporter's recollections about what I said in a long > > interview as evidence of my flawed perspective. > > Were you misquoted, or quoted misleadingly? We went over the subtle distinctions in language ad nausium on AMT. The basic thrust and point was correct, and since you can't control the exact wording with a reporter I have to live with the words used. As an example, I was not claiming to be a little Maharishi, I was aspiring to become enlightened like my master. (do you think anyone else aspired to this in the fulltiime movement or was it just me?) My point was that I was living with a perfectionist standard which was the norm for fulltime monks. I have since decided that this standard is not useful for my life from any source, including when I try to hold myself to my own perfectionist standards. Aspiring to become a "sidha" is by definition a goal of perfection. <Snip> > > Curtis: Since I have repeated numerous times that I was not > > victimized by the movement, this statement is knowingly false. > > Well, no, it's not. It may be "false," but not > knowingly. It's based on what you've said here > and on alt.m.t, and goodness knows I'm not the > only person to understand it that way, your denials > notwithstanding. So even though I do not consider myself a victim, because I chose my participation freely, you can label me a victim and criticize me for being a victim? You are having a conversation with yourself and supplying my side in a form that you can use against me. You can continue on your own then, you don't need me to confuse you with the facts concerning my own life.
