Jim, FYI, it may be that you post something of interest. But your refusal or inability to snip makes me skip all but a few of your comments.
lurk --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" > <jflanegi@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" > > > <jflanegi@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" > <do.rflex@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [big snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but my involvement in such things is limited to just > > > this > > > > > > > > > board, one other, and my daily practice of TM. I > have no > > > > > > > involvement > > > > > > > > > nor do I discuss my spiritual life with anyone or > any > > > group > > > > > > > outside > > > > > > > > > this and one other forum.:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's irrelevant to this discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK- Thanks for your comments. In such an online > discussion > > > it is > > > > > > > difficult for me to see what the real issues are > sometimes. > > > So, > > > > > you > > > > > > > want me to say that I understand that Maharishi has done > > > some > > > > > things > > > > > > > or caused those in his organization to do some things > which > > > > > others > > > > > > > see as wrong. Yes, I see that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second issue seems to be: Do I admit that Maharishi has > done > > > > > some > > > > > > > things that are wrong, and therefore these things impact > my > > > > > judgment > > > > > > > of his credibility? And my answer is that whatever he > may > > > have > > > > > done > > > > > > > that is wrong doesn't impact my view of him. Which > speaks > > > > > directly > > > > > > > to the critical issue here of what I am attempting to > get > > > from > > > > > him > > > > > > > that requires that his credibility remain absolutely > intact. > > > > > Because > > > > > > > the two are intimately linked; need and credibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This isn't about 'you' Jim OR what 'you' need or believe. > It's > > > > > about > > > > > > Maharishi's legitimacy as a teacher and spiritual icon in > > > terms of > > > > > > right and wrong and the implications that flow from that > for > > > the > > > > > > movement, all TMers and the public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing I need from Maharishi. Absolutely > nothing > > > at > > > > > all. > > > > > > > Zip. Not enlightenment, or CC or GC or UC or Brahman, or > any > > > > > > > explanations, elucidations, clarifications, techniques, > or > > > > > anything > > > > > > > else. That being said, there is nothing he can do to > affect > > > his > > > > > > > credibility with me. I want nothing from Maharishi, > past, > > > > > present or > > > > > > > future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this settles the question with you John. We > appear to > > > > > have > > > > > > > very different needs with regard to our relationship > with > > > > > > > Maharishi.:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > The discussion has *nothing* to do at all with what you or > I > > > might > > > > > > "need" from Maharishi. It appears that you're tap dancing > and > > > that > > > > > > it's a waste of time to discuss this any further with you. > > > That's > > > > > > unfortunate... for me, as I was beginning to feel that > someone > > > like > > > > > > you would openly address this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > Not tap dancing at all. What is there to do? Post stuff on > that > > > TM > > > > > Free website? What do you want to do? Again, it comes down > to > > > your > > > > > objectives. What are your objectives here? > > > > > > > > > > If Maharishi's reputation is sullied and it affects his > > > credibility > > > > > in the eyes of the public, and therefore fewer people will > see > > > the > > > > > legitimacy of TM, what is there to do? Must something be > done, > > > or > > > > > can we trust that as Maharishi once said, "all is well and > > > wisely > > > > > set"? What kind of result are you looking for? :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, you're tap dancing. It isn't a matter of "what to do". > > > That's > > > > just another dodge. [Seems the dodges are endless with you.] > It's a > > > > matter of acknowledgement and discussion. You appear unwilling > to > > > > directly acknowledge or to directly discuss the objective > facts > > > that > > > > I've brought up. You treat all of this as if it has no > > > significance. > > > > But it does and you won't even admit that. > > > > > > > I am not tap dancing-- only trying to identify and address any > issue > > > of practical relevance here. The only issue that I can see > remains > > > is that you have said that Maharishi did wrong, he is not > evolved > > > enough to avoid doing this, and therefore this affects his > > > credibility as a spiritual icon and authority figure, for you > and > > > others. So please let me know how to address this. Thank you.:- ) > > > > > > I'm not accustomed to a 'polite' bullshit artist. You're a first > for > > me. I'm wasing my time with you, Jim. > > > ??? I don't get it. You are a first for me too-- despite my hundreds > of posts here on FFL, some in strong disagreement with others, I > have not yet dealt with someone like yourself, who, on the one hand, > repeatedly tells me I am not addressing the issue, and on the other, > refuses to clarify it. Further, every time *I* attempt to clarify > it, which I have done 4 or 5 times, am told I am tap dancing, > evasive, BSing, etc. At this point I don't even know what you want > to discuss, much less resolve. > > You appear to have a set of assumptions you are making and I have no > idea what those are, which I am then accused of obscuring. Very > strange. Anyway, good luck?:-) >
