--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Hey, Curtis, it's not brain surgury. The instructions are really, > realy simple: sit the fuck down for 15-20 minutes twice a day and do > this really easy, effortless procedure. Then take your ass off the > chair and go about your business...YOUR WESTERN, DECADENT, EVERY- MAN- > FOR-HIMSELF DECADENT BUSINESS." > > > Thanks for the detailed response. You are only focusing on one of > MMY's many instructions and trying to reduce his many different > programs, relationships and instructions with the one you prefer, the > one that seems to work for you personally. Denying that MMY gave more > than this instruction seems odd to me.
But that's precisely the point. I am purposely focuing on one -- and only one! -- instruction: the simple, singular, uncomplicated instruction for the TM Program. The many, many other instructions, as you so correctly, put it, I am purposely ignoring. Why? Because they all were given to you POST TM Program instructions. You freely chose to put yourself into the orbit of these non-TM-Program instructions but they have nothing to do with the TM Program. Somehow it is YOU that has managed to mix them up with TM. Not my problem, not the Maharishi's. Your's. > I had many, many more > instructions directly from MMY concerning how he wanted me to do my > program and live my life than this. Yeah, a guru/disciple relationship. Some kid from Baltimore sits down with a monk from Uttar Pradesh and, of his own free will and probably against every iota of common sense he got from family, friends, school, and his Maryland surrounds, actually listens to said guru and goes about and does his bidding. Why did you enter into such a relationship, Curtis, and why, by doing this, did you purposely and consciously abandon the instructions of the TM Program? > I am not challenging your right > to enjoy your version, I am disputing that you know what you are > talking about concerning other people's programs. I know the instructions to the TM Program which by your very words above you obviously weren't following. I suspect you made a deal with the Devil, Curtis: you traded in the path of the TM Program for the empty hope of the possibility of a few moments of Darshan every year with a Vedic Master, erroneously thinking that his few moments of attention will speed you along the TM Program path...when this very master HIMSELF told you up front that this wasn't necessary and the instructions that he gave you right at the beginning was the fastest way to unfold your full potential. Yet in spite of this and in direct defiance of those instructions you went full speed ahead into this guru/disciple relationship. By doing so you spat in the very face of the guru you purported to be following. > > > Rick Archer not realizing he was off the program and you following an > > Indian Guru for the 10 or 15 years that you did is absurd to me. > > It was MMY's program he was following. Most certainly, but it wasn't the program that was the fastest and most effective one, which was the TM Program. That one Rick abandoned in order to latch on to some sort of other program that wasn't as fast or effective and, expectedly, several years later he abandoned the whole kit and kaboodle. Tough. He should have stuck to the original instructions. > MMY is not taking orders from > your view of his teaching apparently. No, he's not. He's getting the free labor he needs to run his organisation by roping in suckers, like you and Rick, who didn't follow the instructions he gave them (through his TM instructors) during the 7-step program. I'd say it was a fair trade-off. Kinda like getting free labor from prisoners on the side of the road in a chain gang. They broke the law, then they gave their free labor to the state as punishment for not following the law. You broke the instructions of the TM Program and your penance was working for Maharishi for 15 years for next to nothing. > Remember the term scientist of > consciousness? MMY was a universally knowledgeable figure to me not > just an Indian. Well, some people regard L. Ron Hubbard as the incarnation of God. What can I do about it? > > My motives for following MMY's detailed programs were because I loved > his programs and wanted to immerse myself in them. And you never found a contradiction between his initial instructions to you and everything else that followed? What planet were you on? And why did it take you so long to realize that contradiction, which you obviously did at some point, because you quit the whole thing about 18 years ago. Better for you that you had realized you were off the program back in '78 rather than when you did. Why, even from the standpoint of finances alone, the contributions you could have given to a 401(k) would mean you'd have about $500,000 more in your pocket today than you do. Boy, Curtis, you blew $500,000. How does that feel? > My decision that > he was not correct in his understanding of human consciousness was a > result of my later growth as a human being, but I value my intense > experiences with his programs. They were a blast. Then maybe it was worth the $500,000 in opportunity cost? > > > My mother told me I was very, very special and I believe her. Are > > you calling my mother a liar? > > I suspect your Mom is a lovely, and extremely tolerant, patient person. Hell, you don't know the half of it. If I infuriate you lot with your occasional visits you make here to FFL out of your free will, imagine what I put the poor woman through seeing that she had no choice but to look after me 24/7 through my formative years? You guys have it easy by comparision...that's why you shouldn't think twice about allowing me more than 35 posts a week. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > The time for debating the 35 post limit is long past. The mob ruled > > > on this one. But I do detect an interesting trend in your > > thinking... > > > > > > You have expressed many times that you are practicing the correct > > form > > > of TM while people who lived fulltime in the movement and had a > > > different relationship with MMY than you did were off the program > > and > > > not doing TM properly. This extends even to people who had direct > > > instructions from MMY himself about their relationship. The idea > > that > > > you are so unique in your understanding of the teaching that you are > > > more correct in your view than people who had personal relationships > > > with MMY has always struck me as extremely odd. > > > > > > > > You find it extremely odd that I as a westerner brought up on fast > > food, TV, and masturbating to Playboy Magazines would not want to > > adopt an Indian Guru as my personal master????? > > > > What part of "TM is not a religion or a philosophy" didn't you > > understand, Curtis???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know from reading many posters try to discuss this with you that > > > communication on this point if futile, but I want to point out that > > it > > > involves your assuming a "special" status among all the people who > > > have been involved with TM. A statement such as Rick Archer not > > doing > > > TM properly when he was involved is absurd to me, but not to you. > > > > > > > > > > Rick Archer not realizing he was off the program and you following an > > Indian Guru for the 10 or 15 years that you did is absurd to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then we have your special posting needs here. Invoking your special > > > needs, you assert that the rules don't apply to you because you > > choose > > > to express yourself in more posts than the other members have agreed > > > on. I detect a trend here. > > > > > > > > Au Contraire, mon cher Curtis. > > > > I acknowledged right up front that, as you so correctly pointed out, > > this is a private forum and the hall monior, Rick Archer, can make > > any rules he wants to. > > > > I just don't agree with them and, yes, they do indeed, curtail my > > ability to express myself here on this forum in the way I want to. > > Of course, it doesn't stop me from going into Google Docs and > > Spreadsheets and writing 200 posts a week on any topic I want > > (including any FFL topic). > > > > > > > > > > > > I enjoy reading some of your posts and I suspect your contribution > > has > > > been good enough to allow Rick and the other moderators to give you > > a > > > pass on your not following the posting rules. > > > > > > But let me use one of my 35 to propose another POV for you to > > > consider. Perhaps you are not so different from the other members > > > here. Perhaps we all had equally valid personal relationships with > > TM > > > and MMY, although they are often very different. One person may > > enjoy > > > TM twice a day with not further relationship with MMY or his > > teaching > > > and some became skin boys. Between those extremes we find the rest > > of > > > us with varying degrees of involvement. > > > > > > Personally, I have never related to people who felt that MMY had the > > > keys to enlightenment but never went full steam into his most > > intense > > > programs. It seems illogical to me. But that doesn't make it wrong > > > for those people who found a different balance with the teaching, it > > > just highlights people's different needs and personalities. > > > > > > > > No, I agree, it doesn't make it wrong for those people...provided > > that they chose that guru/disciple relationship for the right reasons. > > > > If they did it for the wrong reasons -- a short cut to enlightenment, > > etc. -- then they were off the program. I have yet to meet one of > > those ex-TMers -- and that includes both Rick and Ron -- who didn't > > do it for the right reason. Scratch below the surface of an ex- TMer > > malcontent and you'll find someone who followed a guru for all the > > wrong reasons...the wrong TM Program reasons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you attempt to convey that people who made different choices > > than > > > you did with relating to MMY as being wrong, and set yourself up as > > > choosing the correct way, it seems to me that it reveals a lack of > > > understanding of human nature. > > > > > > When and where did I give you impression that I did it the correct > > way? Hey, Buster, it took me about 20 years to realize that I was > > off the program, too!!!!! > > > > > > > > > When you convey this POV in a manor > > > that asserts your special rights over the expressed desire of the > > > group, it makes me wonder... Are you really all that special and > > > different from the rest of us? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > I am special. > > > > My mother told me I was very, very special and I believe her. Are > > you calling my mother a liar? > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think so, I think it is a > > > limitation of your POV. > > > > > > I don't believe that you alone have the special perceptiveness to > > sus > > > out the "correct" form of MMY's teaching to follow, and I don't > > > believe that you have special posting needs that are different from > > > the rest of us. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey, Curtis, it's not brain surgury. The instructions are really, > > realy simple: sit the fuck down for 15-20 minutes twice a day and do > > this really easy, effortless procedure. Then take your ass off the > > chair and go about your business...YOUR WESTERN, DECADENT, EVERY- MAN- > > FOR-HIMSELF DECADENT BUSINESS. If for your business you chose to > > follow some bearded guy from the Himalayas and went to the > > Phillipines to live in a flea-infested hotel and thought you were > > doing the TM Program, I suggest to you that the probability is 99.9% > > that you weren't. > > > > Not for me to determine, Buddy. You gotta ask YOURSELF whether your > > motivations in being a part of the TMO cult was a genuine choice made > > within the context of the instructions of the TM Program or you did > > it as a short-cut or some other inappropriate reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "I made too many postings (some would say that this is just > > > > expressing > > > > > one's free speech) on FFL." > > > > > > > > > > The concept of "free speech" does interest me. It does not > > extend > > > > to > > > > > private groups. The Boy Scouts of America has been protected > > under > > > > > the First Amendment rights of private association in their > > > > > discrimination against atheists and gay members. This forum's > > rules > > > > > do not attempt to restrict your "free speech" by attempting to > > make > > > > > rules that make the forum more enjoyable for everyone. Trying > > to > > > > turn > > > > > your own lack of caring for what the rest of the group wants > > does > > > > not > > > > > deserve to wear the banner of your "free speech". Free speech > > is > > > > > important, inconsiderateness (in this form) is petty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're absolutely right that free speech doesn't extend to > > private > > > > forums, such as this one. > > > > > > > > So let me use the term "speech" instead of "free speech" which to > > you > > > > (and others I assume) invokes the first amendment of the > > constitution. > > > > > > > > My speech and the way I express myself is often practised by > > short, > > > > curt postings. And I do many of them. > > > > > > > > That's just the way I express myself. > > > > > > > > Others, such as Barry Wright, tend towards long, many worded > > > > postings. Few and far between, but long-worded. Barry's weekly > > > > postings are well under the 35 per week limit. > > > > > > > > His style and my style are on opposite ends of the "speech" > > spectrum, > > > > so to speak. > > > > > > > > But my style is not allowed on this forum. No violation of my > > > > constitutional right to free speech but most certainly a > > violation of > > > > my speech style. > > > > > > > > Since you are, as you say, interested in the concept of "free > > speech" > > > > then I assume you are familiar with the concept > > of "proportionality" > > > > when it comes to curtailing it within the context of this group. > > > > > > > > We've all heard the analogy: free speech does not extend to > > > > shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. That is, a state or > > > > municipality can certainly pass a law in their jurisdiction > > outlawing > > > > the shouting of "fire" in crowded theatres in order to prevent > > riots > > > > and trampling of people. But passing a law that outlaws ANY > > talking > > > > in theatres would most certainly go BEYOND the purpose of such a > > > > statute and be found to be unconstitutional. Why? Because it is > > not > > > > proportional to the objective persued. Preventing stampeding in > > > > crowded theatres justifies a law banning shouting "fire" at the > > top > > > > of one's lungs; outlawing any talking (which would include > > whispering > > > > and idle chatter amongst theatre goers) is not proportional to > > the > > > > objective sought. > > > > > > > > In the same way, the 35 posting limit per week is, in my opinion, > > not > > > > proportional to the objective sought. > > > > > > > > I assume that people who support the 35 per week posting limit do > > not > > > > like so many entries on their FFL list or don't like to receive > > so > > > > many emails of posts that are, to them, nonsense. > > > > > > > > Well, as I've always maintained, if the above is such an affront > > to > > > > you, simply opt out of receiving FFL via email or, if looking at > > > > a "message list" on the Yahoo site (which is the way I do it) > > simply > > > > don't click on the names of those posters you know to be wanton > > > > posters (such as myself). Very simple...and minimal effort on > > the > > > > part of participants to weed out the posters to whom they object. > > > > > > > > But to limit posts to ALL participants to 35 per week does, in my > > > > opinion, discriminate against those, such as myself, whose speech > > is > > > > expressed by short, numerous posts. Again, this is a private > > forum > > > > and Rick et al can make up any rules they want and I'm using the > > > > proportionality test (which exists in the jurisprudence of free > > > > speech law) is meant as an analogy here. But the rule is > > prejudicial > > > > and disproportionate to what is sought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > > <shempmcgurk@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My bet is that several of them will still be > > > > > > > smarting because I wrote them off as assholes > > > > > > > yesterday because of *their* past behavior on > > > > > > > this forum, refusing to abide by its rules and > > > > > > > consciously flouting them, going over the post- > > > > > > > ing limit on a regular basis. > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm smarting not because you wrote me off as an asshole but > > > > because > > > > > > you refuse to acknowledge that you made something up out of > > whole > > > > > > cloth just to win spiritual brownie points in a debate you > > were > > > > > > having with someone on this forum. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm the one who refuses to abide by the rules of this forum > > and > > > > who > > > > > > consciously flouts those rules by going over the posting > > limit on > > > > a > > > > > > regular basis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ooooh. What a crime. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, compare my crime to your's, Barry. You fabricated > > > > spiritual > > > > > > knowledge to boost your ego in a game of one-upmanship; I > > made > > > > too > > > > > > many postings (some would say that this is just expressing > > one's > > > > free > > > > > > speech) on FFL. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about your > > > > > > fabricated spiritual information, Barry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
