I'm interested in learning tm siddhi
jimbo
wants thousands of $$ for it I did find a tm ex site that goes thru the
procedure but doesn't give the translations for the sutra eg happines
etc anyone know anything about tm siddhi program
jimbo
jimbo
jst...@panix.com
You can't learn the TM-Sidhis from a Web site, Jimbo, or
from somebody posting to a Web forum. If you can't
afford what TM charges, you're better off leaving the
whole thing alone.
Are you a practitioner of plain-vanilla TM?
jimbo
and the words used but they are not in sancrit it goes thru the whole
process but no translations for the words I've taken tm before but not
the siddhi program
jimbo
jimbo
jimbo
jimbo
jst...@panix.com
I'd just stick with TM, if I were you. You *really*
cannot learn the TM-Sidhis on your own. You'd be
very unlikely to get good results.
jimbo
siddhi techniques
jimbo
Stephen K Anderson
"jimbo" <jame...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1129779273.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Stephen K Anderson
on-line.
If you learn a little Sanskrit a whole world of possibilities will open up
for you. It won't help you with this idea much though.
I don't know if anyone could develop the Sidhis in isolation without a
community of meditators. People who have had any success were at least at
some point going to group meditations and group siddhi practice. It would be
one a million who could get anywhere on their own. You are more likely to
develop Siddhi spontaneously from devoted practice than to suceed with the
TM-Sidhis without formal instruction.
Maharishi advocated other practices that don't cost much money but that help
develop towards enlightenment and you don't have to have the Siddhis to
benefit. They include balancing the doshas according to Ayurveda, the use of
meditation enhancing herbs like the Brahmi,Ashwagandha,Shankapushi etc in
Amrit Kalash, asana,pranayama, listening to the Rig and Sama Veda chants,
reading the Six Darshanas in Sanskrit and also Stotram like the Vishnu
Sahasramama. These things take time and disciple rather than necessarily
much money.
"jimbo" <jame...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1129779273.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jst...@panix.com
jimbo wrote:
> Check out the meditation information network and look under tm and tm
> siddhi techniques
Yes, I'm very familiar with what is on that site.
Thing is, the Meditation Information Network (Minet
for short) is run by somebody who thinks it's all a
scam and essentially wants to do the TM organization
as much damage as possible.
One of the ways he tries to do this is to put up
abbreviated instructions for TM and the TM-Sidhis and
tell readers that's all there is to them, that they
can learn and practice what the TM organization
teaches simply by following those instructions,
without having to pay for them.
But it *isn't* all there is to them, by a long shot.
If people try to learn TM and the TM-Sidhis by
following the instructions he has on his site, they
aren't going to get anything like the same results as
if they'd learned them from people trained to teach
them.
And they will decide, as the proprietor of the site
intends, that the techniques are ineffective, without
ever having learned to practice them properly. Even
if they do have the money to learn from the TM
organization, they never will.
With regard to the TM-Sidhis, for example, when you
learn them from the TM organization, you're provided
with a great deal of context to understand how they
work; you get much more detailed instructions for the
practice; and you get specific personal assistance if
you find you're having problems with the practice.
It's a little bit as if somebody were to say that to
learn to play the piano, you don't have to pay money
for piano lessons; all that's necessary is to learn
which little black note on a musical score corresponds
to which key on the piano, and then gave you a list of
the correspondences. The list may be accurate, but
it isn't going to be much help in learning to play
a concerto the way it was intended to sound.
So the instructions on Minet are really pretty much
useless.
I agree with you that the TM organization is charging
a lot more than it should for instruction. But that's
just the way it is, unfortunately.
jst...@panix.com
jimbo wrote:
> let me know what you think of this
By the way, if you want to quote the post you're
responding to, instead of clicking on the Reply
button at the bottom of the post, click instead on
the Show Options button at the top of the post,
then click on Reply in the options box that opens
up. If you do that, the text of the message you're
responding to will appear in the message entry
window.
The Reply button at the bottom just gives you an
empty message entry window.
Peter
"jimbo" <jame...@sbcglobal.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1129777762.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well the socalled TM siddhi program can only be learned within the TM org.
However you must first make up your mind what you want or to learn or do?.
Because there are several things in this siddhi thing. First of all it is
only in Harry Potter that people really can fly or can use the magic powers.
The siddhi´s can be meditated on by anyone, just go to the local library and
get the "yoga Sutras". No one has so far realised the sutras yet. But mayby
you will be the first to do so. Have you been near the girls meditation room
and mayby felt the sentations in the body when the girls scream. I tried to
meditate in the room next to where the girls did their yogic flying. It felt
like I had orgasm with my entire body.
However I am told by TM ers that the yogic flying are boring in the long
run. FYI ive seen a cult in Japan that do the same orgasm/kundalini thing
without doing the sutras, but you will have find them first. But be
practical TM is worldwide, and for a lot of money you can have yogic
sexflying. But be aware that some TM ers claimed that they have becomed ill
from this program, My concern is more of a spiritual kind, since many have
shown demonic tendencies, hence the demonic trio.
Steve Ralph
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1129812315....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I think they are downright dangerous. The intent behind what they
have put on the net is very negative, and I would contend that with this
destructive intent it could actually dangerous to use them.
> I agree with you that the TM organization is charging
> a lot more than it should for instruction. But that's
> just the way it is, unfortunately.
>
There are plenty of very good techniques out there, it is
best to learn one of those if you can't or won't pay the
imho overly high fee. Learning TM techniques from Minet or Trancenut
- well, chewing radioactive waste is probably more constructive.
sr
SR
Steve Ralph
"Peter" <pe...@myanmar.com> wrote in message
news:4357a4d4$0$1796$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
of
fundamentalist.
sr
>
will...@yahoo.com
> let me know what you think of this
>
TM-Siddhi technique, just give me a call anytime and I'll explain it
all to you in just a few minutes. All the TM mantras, the checking
notes, and even the TM puja have been posted on the Internet by these
miscreants already. I learned the TM-Siddhi technique over the
telephone from the Maharishi himself back in 1976 and I've been a
meditator since 1964.
Don't pay any attention to any of these misfits - none of them are
teachers of TM - and most of them aren't even on the Maharishi's
program anymore. There's no reason you can't learn the Siddhis and
begin your practice right away. Don't listen to their lies and excuses
- they've all been discredited many times over by those who are in the
know. None of them, to my knowledge, are allowed inside a Maharishi
Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge - they are no longer on the inside track.
If you want to learn all about the TM-Siddhi program you can contact me
by email and I'll give you directions to get to my place for personal
instruction. There are Greyhound busses to Austin from all points in
the USA and we even have an airport for you to land on. If you want,
I'll take you to the Maharishi Golden Dome at Radience, Texas, home of
the Superradience Program, and to Barsana Dham, one of the largest
Hindu temples outside India. I'll teach you how to meditate, fly, AND
do the sankirtan, all in one fell swoop, for free!
will...@yahoo.com
> By the way, if you want to quote the post you're
> responding to, instead of clicking on the Reply
> button at the bottom of the post, click instead on
> the Show Options button at the top of the post,
> then click on Reply in the options box that opens
> up. If you do that, the text of the message you're
> responding to will appear in the message entry
> window.
>
moderator of this forum - and you've got nothing worthwhile to add to
the garbage you've already posted. In fact, I think you should just
leave, and take you friends and buddies with you - go to the mountain
and never come down.
> The Reply button at the bottom just gives you an
> empty message entry window.
>
D'oh! Why would jimbo want to reply to your misinformation? Posting it
once is way too many times already.
jimbo - snip the hell out of it!
will...@yahoo.com
> Learning TM techniques from Minet or Trancenut - well, chewing
> radioactive waste is probably more constructive.
>
around slowly and go back to bed. Get some rest, so that tomorrow you
can get some work done for a change.
From: John Manning
Subject: Maharishi's mantras
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2002-07-30 20:27:15 PST
I am familiar with my own advanced transcendental meditation technique
mantras. I am also familiar with the mantras Maharishi gave me to
teach.
The following includes what I was taught. It also includes other
information which I was not given by Maharishi or in advanced
instruction, but which follows the context within which I received what
I got. The source is
http://minet.org/mantras-alt.html
John Manning
From: Lawson English
Subject: Re: Maharishi's mantras
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2002-07-31 12:18:49 PST
So no-one, at any time, asked you to keep what you learned on the TTC
"confidential?"
From: John Manning
Subject: Re: Maharishi's mantras
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2002-07-31 14:19:21 PST
That is correct - no one. What is there in TM to hide from others? Why
should anything be 'hidden'? Maybe so someone can be in a 'special'
position of information 'superiority'? Hmmmm...
Original TM technique mantra:
AING (original mantra, meaning "Hindu goddess Saraswati")
Advanced technique mantras:
SHRI (added mantra, meaning, "Oh most beautiful")
AING (original mantra, meaning, "Hindu goddess Saraswati")
NAMAH (added mantra, meaning, "I bow down")
SHRI AING NAMAH = "Oh most beautiful goddess Saraswati, I bow down."
These advanced techniques "make use of" *additional mantras*. The
actual practise of using the additional mantras together with the
original one - is identical to the practice of using the original
mantra alone. And while the mantras *do* have a meaning, THAT MEANING
IS NOT USED IN THE ACTUAL PRACTISE - *only* the 'sound' is used - just
like with the original technique.
The point of all of this is *only* to point out that the TM mantras are
not 'meaningless sounds'. It appears that some TMers are *desparate* to
stick with the idea that TM is simply a mechanical technique (which it
is) and strictly devoid of any religious or spiritual content (which it
obviously isn't).
John Manning
Vaj
On 10/19/05 11:26 PM, in article
1129778819....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "jimbo"
<jame...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Believe it or not, the TM Sidhi program is done in english! A siddha
associated with Mahesh yogi, Tat Walla Baba, said they should be done in
Sanskrit which seems to be the consensus among serious Patanjali gurus. So
should you decide to learn the TMSP, you will not have to learn the Sanskrit
formulas, but you will have to spend a lot of money.
Vaj
On 10/20/05 10:07 AM, in article
4357a4d4$0$1796$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk, "Peter" <pe...@myanmar.com>
wrote:
> But be aware that some TM ers claimed that they have becomed ill
> from this program, My concern is more of a spiritual kind, since many have
> shown demonic tendencies, hence the demonic trio.
Indeed. Many tend to develop pranic diseases with long term practice of the
TM-Sidhi program. One of Mahesh's closest disciples, who has now left "the
movement" has said that young children who were very perceptive would
perceive Mahesh as a demon. The Shurangama sutra actually states what the
signs are of people possessed by demons from heaven dimensions and it's not
uncommon to see these signs in long-term TM practitioners who are so proud
to tell you about their own enlightenment. It's really quite disturbing to
witness.
jst...@panix.com
will...@yahoo.com wrote:
> jimbo wrote:
> > let me know what you think of this
> >
> jimbo - I think it's all a bunch of bullshit
Jimbo--note that Willytex is a pathological liar.
You can't trust anything he says, including in
the post I'm responding to.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj wrote:
> On 10/19/05 11:26 PM, in article
> 1129778819....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "jimbo"
> <jame...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > there's a website from ex tm practitioners that goes thru the process
> > and the words used but they are not in sancrit it goes thru the whole
> > process but no translations for the words I've taken tm before but not
> > the siddhi program
>
> Believe it or not, the TM Sidhi program is done in english! A siddha
> associated with Mahesh yogi, Tat Walla Baba, said they should be done in
> Sanskrit which seems to be the consensus among serious Patanjali gurus.
A position with which MMY obviously disagrees. Unfortunately
Vaj is not able to address MMY's reasoning.
jst...@panix.com
the purpose of denigrating TM and MMY. But he doesn't
know nearly as much about TM as he would have you believe.
John Manning
> Jimbo, Vaj's presence on this newsgroup is solely for
> the purpose of denigrating TM and MMY. But he doesn't
> know nearly as much about TM as he would have you believe.
Judy is right. I was trained to teach TM by
Maharishi and have given instruction to many
hundreds. Vaj has very little knowledge of
the subtle aspects of the TM instruction and
its direct experience in practical terms. He
attempts to discredit TM solely on the basis
of other teachings and systems, while
failing to address TM on its own terms. He
just doesn't know what those terms are.
Steve Ralph
"Vaj" <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote in message
news:BF7E58FD.537%vajra...@not-shunyata.org...
sr
eki
Perhaps doing them in Sanskrit is like using assembly language
or even machine language in programming, whereas doing them
in "non-Sanskrit" languages is like using some compiler or
interpreter. I guess the word "aakaasha" has not been translated
because of 'ak' (infinity and point)... : 0
jst...@panix.com
John Manning wrote:
> jst...@panix.com wrote:
> > Jimbo, Vaj's presence on this newsgroup is solely for
> > the purpose of denigrating TM and MMY. But he doesn't
> > know nearly as much about TM as he would have you believe.
>
> Judy is right. I was trained to teach TM by
> Maharishi and have given instruction to many
> hundreds. Vaj has very little knowledge of
> the subtle aspects of the TM instruction and
> its direct experience in practical terms. He
> attempts to discredit TM solely on the basis
> of other teachings and systems, while
> failing to address TM on its own terms. He
> just doesn't know what those terms are.
Well put. It makes you wonder also how well he
understands the other teachings and systems he
uses as a basis to discredit TM.
Plus which, there's his chronic intellectual
dishonesty, as well as his *factual* dishonesty
(e.g., his bit about MMY's "Do nothing and accomplish
everything" being linked to get-rich-quick schemes
on the Web, a complete fabrication).
John Manning
LOL! I must have missed that one. Makes you
wonder how successful *his* teachings and
systems are, when he seems to feel a need to
make up stuff like that just to put TM down.
Maharishi has made a big deal about how
those 'traditional' systems have become
effectively flawed in time. He was right.
Maharishi's TM indeed has been a revolution
in practical application of timeless
simplicity that people like Vaj
unfortunately, by their own arrogant
so-called 'knowledge', fail to comprehend
and totally miss. They are the losers.
The actual practise of and experience of TM
is sublime; far beyond the nonsense that Vaj
proclaims in words and quibbles; far beyond
any crude relative description. It's been my
personal direct experience and the
experience of innumerable people whom I've
instructed, and others whom I have
encountered who do TM properly. Perception
of what that means depends on having
*experienced* it. There are NO words that
can convey that *experience*.
jst...@panix.com
That was on FFL, but I challenged him on it again
here, and he had no response.
Makes you
> wonder how successful *his* teachings and
> systems are, when he seems to feel a need to
> make up stuff like that just to put TM down.
He's like Barry; all he's doing is puffing up his
own self-image.
> Maharishi has made a big deal about how
> those 'traditional' systems have become
> effectively flawed in time. He was right.
> Maharishi's TM indeed has been a revolution
> in practical application of timeless
> simplicity that people like Vaj
> unfortunately, by their own arrogant
> so-called 'knowledge', fail to comprehend
> and totally miss. They are the losers.
Whether MMY is right or not, his ideas can't
be challenged, as Vaj tries to do, merely by
asserting that others think differently. That's
just a completely fallacious argument.
> The actual practise of and experience of TM
> is sublime; far beyond the nonsense that Vaj
> proclaims in words and quibbles; far beyond
> any crude relative description. It's been my
> personal direct experience and the
> experience of innumerable people whom I've
> instructed, and others whom I have
> encountered who do TM properly. Perception
> of what that means depends on having
> *experienced* it. There are NO words that
> can convey that *experience*.
Dittoes.
jst...@panix.com
eki wrote:
<snip>
> Perhaps doing them in Sanskrit is like using assembly language
> or even machine language in programming, whereas doing them
> in "non-Sanskrit" languages is like using some compiler or
> interpreter. I guess the word "aakaasha" has not been translated
> because of 'ak' (infinity and point)... : 0
Neat analogy. I'm not sure it's correct, but it's neat!
Vaj
On 10/21/05 10:54 AM, in article L9mdne7KyOg...@giganews.com, "John
Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Vaj has very little knowledge of
> the subtle aspects of the TM instruction and
> its direct experience in practical terms.
Quite the opposite, I have lots of direct experience. It just bothers TB's
to no end that I won't use TM buzzwords to parrot the same phrases over and
over again.
He
> attempts to discredit TM solely on the basis
> of other teachings and systems, while
> failing to address TM on its own terms.
No. I think all the practices like TM--and there are numerous people who
teach this same technique--have some value for learning the basics of
meditation. They're fast and easy--and that's a good thing. In some people
that may be a life practice. But most people move on.
He
> just doesn't know what those terms are.
No, I just don't parrot them like a TM robot (i.e. you and Judy). I'd rather
find the source of the teaching and learn it from the source rather than a
watered down system passed on in English and pseudo-scientific jargon.
Hey, whatever turns you on. It is a fad who's time has passed. Nature is no
longer supporting it. Sad but true.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj wrote:
> On 10/21/05 10:54 AM, in article L9mdne7KyOg...@giganews.com, "John
> Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > Vaj has very little knowledge of
> > the subtle aspects of the TM instruction and
> > its direct experience in practical terms.
>
> Quite the opposite, I have lots of direct experience. It just bothers TB's
> to no end that I won't use TM buzzwords to parrot the same phrases over and
> over again.
Exhibit A of Vaj's intellectual dishonesty.
It isn't a matter of using "TM buzzwords." It's a
matter of demonstrating understanding of the concepts
of MMY's teaching. You don't do that because you
*cannot*. Buzzwords per se have nothing to do with it;
they're a red herring, a thought-stopper you toss out
in an attempt to make yourself sound superior.
> He
> > attempts to discredit TM solely on the basis
> > of other teachings and systems, while
> > failing to address TM on its own terms.
>
> No. I think all the practices like TM--and there are numerous people who
> teach this same technique--have some value for learning the basics of
> meditation. They're fast and easy--and that's a good thing. In some people
> that may be a life practice. But most people move on.
Nonresponsive to what John said, which is absolutely
100 percent accurate. (Also the statement about
"numerous people who teach this same technique" is
false; and if Vaj had any idea what he was talking
about, he'd realize that.)
> > He just doesn't know what those terms are.
>
> No, I just don't parrot them like a TM robot
In the first place, as Vaj is well aware, "terms"
here doesn't refer to terminology, it refers to
elements of MMY's teaching and of personal
experience.
> (i.e. you and Judy).
In the second place, John and I don't "parrot"
anything. If Vaj had any idea what he was talking
about, he'd know that.
> I'd rather
> find the source of the teaching and learn it from the source rather than a
> watered down system passed on in English and pseudo-scientific jargon.
Non sequitur.
> Hey, whatever turns you on. It is a fad who's time has passed. Nature is no
> longer supporting it. Sad but true.
So why are you here, Vaj? And on FFL?
John Manning
Indeed.
Vaj.
On 10/21/05 3:27 PM, in article
1129922876.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "jst...@panix.com"
<jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> Vaj wrote:
>> On 10/21/05 10:54 AM, in article L9mdne7KyOg...@giganews.com, "John
>> Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>
>>> Vaj has very little knowledge of
>>> the subtle aspects of the TM instruction and
>>> its direct experience in practical terms.
>>
>> Quite the opposite, I have lots of direct experience. It just bothers TB's
>> to no end that I won't use TM buzzwords to parrot the same phrases over and
>> over again.
>
> Exhibit A of Vaj's intellectual dishonesty.
>
> It isn't a matter of using "TM buzzwords." It's a
> matter of demonstrating understanding of the concepts
> of MMY's teaching. You don't do that because you
> *cannot*. Buzzwords per se have nothing to do with it;
> they're a red herring, a thought-stopper you toss out
> in an attempt to make yourself sound superior.
Naw, nice try. You either get the whole picture or you get part of it. The
Tm concepts are fairly simple, it's no big deal. Part of the marketing,
selling and ultimately *the conditioning* of the followers of TM/TMSP was to
get them to believe it was more than it really was. That's what advertisers
and marketeers do. For the TMO that sufficed as a workable strategy before
the spiritual savvy for 'things eastern' was mature. Now that a deeper
paradigm of eastern practices have emerged in the west, shallow movements
like TM (but not restricted to TM) are being seen for what they are. And
people are fleeing such orgs by the thousands. The TM movement is largely a
bunch of old fogeys. They attract few young people. Nature's support wanes.
There will always be those who cling to the past.
Klingon, Judy. You're just a Klingon.
Vaj.
On 10/21/05 3:27 PM, in article
1129922876.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "jst...@panix.com"
<jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>> I'd rather
>> find the source of the teaching and learn it from the source rather than a
>> watered down system passed on in English and pseudo-scientific jargon.
>
> Non sequitur.
True Believer translation: Judy doesn't get it.
Vaj.
On 10/21/05 3:27 PM, in article
1129922876.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "jst...@panix.com"
<jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Hey, whatever turns you on. It is a fad who's time has passed. Nature is no
>> longer supporting it. Sad but true.
>
> So why are you here, Vaj? And on FFL?
Because the majority of those people have moved on--and THAT'S interesting
to be part of.
Yes, some of us are actually interested in in evolution.
Some cling to the past, the Klingons.
John Manning
Vaj offers nothing but opinion based on
failed and contemporarily ineffectual
tradition. He lashes back when he's rightly
pointed out for being self-serving,
dishonest and useless to anyone for anything
but peanut gallery cheerleading for
similarly disgruntled ignorant people who
have nothing positive to offer.
It's nothing new.
Mike Doughney
<jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>jimbo wrote:
>> Check out the meditation information network and look under tm and tm
>> siddhi techniques
>
>Yes, I'm very familiar with what is on that site.
Despite your familiarity, or not, with that site (that would be *my*
website), you are, as usual, deliberately posting falsehoods about
both it, and me.
>Thing is, the Meditation Information Network (Minet
>for short) is run by somebody who thinks it's all a
>scam
A *scam*, eh? I hardly have to characterize it as that. Anybody
reading this newsgroup would have to conclude that the TM program has
either attracted or produced some of the more remarkably disfunctional
human beings on the planet, who at some point in their lives paid for
the privilege of participating in the TM program.
I am, of course, referring to you, Judy, and some of the other
resident entities here on this newsgroup. And you and the rest of you
are a fantastic advertisement for the ineffectiveness and general
stupidity of the TM program, something that I could never even begin
to match, if I really were out to do some kind of "damage" to the
pathetic crumbling remains of the "TM organization." Which leads me to
lie #1 in your post:
>and essentially wants to do the TM organization
>as much damage as possible.
As I wrote right there on the page with those oh-so-sacred TM mantras,
today I care very little about "Transcendental Meditation" and the
groups that have something to do with it. But if you're going to
get on this newsgroup and lie about me, by name or indirectly... well,
don't expect me not to notice.
The idea that I can somehow cause "damage" to the pathetic remains
of the "TM organization" with a handful of nonsense words on a webpage
is just plain silly. You and others like you do more damage to the
organization, day in and day out, right here on this single newsgroup,
than an outsider could ever dream of doing, not to mention the
self-inflicted damage the leaders and a few celebrity hangers-on
regularly contribute everytime they open their mouths.
Now, time for lie #2, and boy, is this one a real whopper:
>One of the ways he tries to do this is to put up
>abbreviated instructions for TM and the TM-Sidhis and
>tell readers that's all there is to them, that they
>can learn and practice what the TM organization
>teaches simply by following those instructions,
>without having to pay for them.
Now if this perenially clueless specimen of a TM participant actually
were as familiar with my website as she claims to be, she would have
first read and understood the disclaimer and my responses to the
e-mail I have recieved, where I specifically and truthfully say
otherwise, that the page of so-called "techniques" was not placed
there to be used as part of anybody's meditation practice. I wrote, on
http://www.minet.org/mantras.html:
: Provided for historical and research purposes only. That means,
: these mantras and other information about these programs weren't
: placed here with the intention that you should use them for
: "meditation," or use them for any other purpose whatsover.
Now perhaps I should revise that and repeat it a few times so that
it's a little clearer for those whose English comprehension is none
too good, starting with Judy:
: Provided for historical and research purposes only. That means,
: these mantras and other information about these programs, if
: obtained from this website, are not to be used for the purpose of
: meditation, and they were not placed on this website for the
: facilitation of, or use in, meditation, any kind of mental practice
: or exercise, or for their use for any other purpose whatsoever. This
: website and its author do not and will not provide meditation
: instruction by any means.
No matter what I put on the website, though, I'll continue to get mail
from people who want me to somehow contribute something to their
meditation practice. There will continue to be clowns like this Jimbo
character who are desperately searching for some magic meditation
practice to make their life complete and effortless, and who are going
to do whatever they want to do with whatever they find, wherever they
find it, because they still want a free lunch, don't care to pay much
for that free lunch, and certainly aren't going to let any little
disclaimer I write get in the way of their pursuit of the free
lunch. Not much I can do about that, since it seems that the singular
great success of the TM movement is the cultural popularization of the
idea that some silly little nonsense sound called a "mantra" is
somehow sacred, precious, worth paying for, and Really Really
Special. Looks like one thing, and only one thing, about the movement
stuck; decades later, a webpage of meaningless sounds somebody branded
"mantras" is still important to some people to the point of
ridiculousness.
>But it *isn't* all there is to them, by a long shot.
>If people try to learn TM and the TM-Sidhis by
>following the instructions he has on his site, they
>aren't going to get anything like the same results as
>if they'd learned them from people trained to teach
>them.
There are no instructions to anybody on my website. None. Just a bunch
of nonsense words and some notes about the process that a TM teacher
is supposed to go through when *they* go about *their* meditation
instruction. Checking notes are there, too, but how you'd use checking
notes on yourself I don't know.
A bunch of nonsense words on a webpage do not constitute meditation
instruction. Nor does a page that provides a few hints about what one
might expect if they were to go spend an obscene amount of money on
meditation instruction from the TM movement, if it's even possible to
find one of the very few places on the planet where such instruction
might still be available.
By all means, please point out where it is somewhere hidden to my mere
middle-aged human eyesight where it says anywhere on the minet.org
website anything like "you can meditate too, and Not Pay A Cent, and
Here's How!"
>And they will decide, as the proprietor of the site
>intends, that the techniques are ineffective, without
>ever having learned to practice them properly. Even
>if they do have the money to learn from the TM
>organization, they never will.
Hell, it doesn't take my website for anybody to figure out "that the
techniques are ineffective." Just a few minutes spent here reading
this clueless blathering by those who currently practice the
movement's techniques would be more than enough to send sane people
running to safety. If this is what a newsgroup of meditators looks and
sounds like, why would anybody in their worst nightmare want to learn TM?
>With regard to the TM-Sidhis, for example, when you
>learn them from the TM organization, you're provided
>with a great deal of context to understand how they
>work; you get much more detailed instructions for the
>practice; and you get specific personal assistance if
>you find you're having problems with the practice.
Nope, there's no TM-Sidhi instruction on minet.org, either. Which
means your blathering about some other context in the course of that
kind of instruction is simply irrelevant.
>It's a little bit as if somebody were to say that to
>learn to play the piano, you don't have to pay money
>for piano lessons; all that's necessary is to learn
>which little black note on a musical score corresponds
>to which key on the piano, and then gave you a list of
>the correspondences. The list may be accurate, but
>it isn't going to be much help in learning to play
>a concerto the way it was intended to sound.
A mind is not a piano, neither is it a pool of water with bubbles
coming up from the bottom, nor is meditation like playing a piano, nor
is meditation instruction anything like piano lessons. A woman is not
a swimming pool. Excessive use of metaphor and simile may be hazardous
to your health. Thank you for your attention!
Time for one last little lie from this round of verbiage from Judy
Stein:
>So the instructions on Minet are really pretty much
>useless.
There are no instructions for anybody to do anything on minet.org.
>I agree with you that the TM organization is charging
>a lot more than it should for instruction. But that's
>just the way it is, unfortunately.
Yup. Just the way it is. The long-term practice of TM produces this
kind of behavior that is clearly evident in this collection of
marginally sane newsgroup participants, one of whom lies about and
libels a person with a website that has just a little bit of basic
information about what the TM movement sells, or used to be selling.
John Manning
Mike Doughney 'innocently' attempts to
proclaim that others never try to practise
TM from having read his website. Posts that
have been received just on this forum over
the years, indicate otherwise. Judy's
conclusions in that regard cannot be
disputed. In my view your intentions are
dishonorable, Mike.
I'm certainly not a fan of the current TMO
or Maharishi's current endeavors. But the TM
itself, in my experience, has never been
surpassed - and I've studied *and
experienced* this kind of stuff all of my 56
years. Your website isn't even academic.
It's superficial, biased, and damaging to
the legitimacy of TM - which you apparently
never came to appreciate.
John Manning
Vaj.
Thanks for the welcome wind of fresh air here! Yes, Judy is a chronic and
pathological liar--although she often projects that deeply rooted vice onto
others with abandon. It is my hope that eventually there will be a 12-step
group for such people. Until then, tough love is the order of the day.
Godspeed!
Cheers,
Vaj.
On 10/21/05 6:22 PM, in article djbpn...@news1.newsguy.com, "Mike
jst...@panix.com
Vaj. wrote:
> On 10/21/05 3:27 PM, in article
> 1129922876.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "jst...@panix.com"
> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Vaj wrote:
> >> On 10/21/05 10:54 AM, in article L9mdne7KyOg...@giganews.com, "John
> >> Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Vaj has very little knowledge of
> >>> the subtle aspects of the TM instruction and
> >>> its direct experience in practical terms.
> >>
> >> Quite the opposite, I have lots of direct experience. It just bothers TB's
> >> to no end that I won't use TM buzzwords to parrot the same phrases over and
> >> over again.
> >
> > Exhibit A of Vaj's intellectual dishonesty.
> >
> > It isn't a matter of using "TM buzzwords." It's a
> > matter of demonstrating understanding of the concepts
> > of MMY's teaching. You don't do that because you
> > *cannot*. Buzzwords per se have nothing to do with it;
> > they're a red herring, a thought-stopper you toss out
> > in an attempt to make yourself sound superior.
>
> Naw, nice try. You either get the whole picture or you get part of it. The
> Tm concepts are fairly simple, it's no big deal.
Uh-huh. Then if you were familiar with them,
it shouldn't be difficult for you to discuss
them intelligently. But you can't, and you've
proved it here over and over again. You don't
refrain from using TM "buzzwords" out of distaste,
but rather because you don't understand the
concepts they refer to, and you'd expose your
ignorance even further if you tried.
You may well succeed in pulling the wool over
the eyes of readers who aren't that well informed
about what MMY teaches, but to those who are, your
lack of understanding is painfully obvious.
> Part of the marketing,
> selling and ultimately *the conditioning* of the followers of TM/TMSP was to
> get them to believe it was more than it really was. That's what advertisers
> and marketeers do.
The issue here is whether you know enough about
what MMY teaches to support such assertions. So
far you have been utterly unable to demonstrate
that you do.
> For the TMO that sufficed as a workable strategy before
> the spiritual savvy for 'things eastern' was mature. Now that a deeper
> paradigm of eastern practices have emerged in the west, shallow movements
> like TM (but not restricted to TM) are being seen for what they are. And
> people are fleeing such orgs by the thousands. The TM movement is largely a
> bunch of old fogeys. They attract few young people. Nature's support wanes.
>
> There will always be those who cling to the past.
>
> Klingon, Judy. You're just a Klingon.
Uh-huh. Except I'm not "clinging to the past," I'm
doing practices that continue to work for me.
Maybe there are traditions that are more "spiritually
savvy" than TM, but even if there are, (a) what I'm
doing now suits me just fine, and (b) even if it didn't
suit me, I sure wouldn't take *your* word for the
superiority of what else was available because of your
obvious ignorance of what I *am* doing.
I don't have your deep reverence for traditions and
lineages (speaking of "clinging to the past"!). What
MMY says about how old traditions have deteriorated
from the original teaching makes sense to me. And I
*certainly* haven't seen from you any arguments as to
why what he says in this regard isn't accurate.
"Clinging to the past"-- boy, is that a brilliant
example of inadvertent irony. *You're* the one
hawking engraved-in-stone traditions of the past and
rejecting out of hand--without ever actually
addressing their substance--the fresh insights MMY
teaches. You're the Klingon, Vaj, not me.
jst...@panix.com
No, it's a non sequitur. The topic here is your
lack of understanding of what MMY teaches. It's
fine for you to get the teaching from somewhere
else, but you have no basis for claiming it's
somehow more authentic or more profound than what
MMY teaches IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MMY TEACHES.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj. wrote:
> Mike:
>
> Thanks for the welcome wind of fresh air here! Yes, Judy is a chronic and
> pathological liar--although she often projects that deeply rooted vice onto
> others with abandon.
Like when Vaj claimed on FFL that MMY's phrase "Do nothing
and accomplish everything" was linked on the Web to all
kinds of "get rich quick" schemes. Was I projecting that you
were lying, Vaj?
Anybody can verify this for themselves: the phrase is not
linked to *any* "get rich quick" schemes on the Web. Vaj
made that up out of whole cloth.
In fact, I have never, ever told a single lie on this
forum. Vaj is lying when he says otherwise, and so is
Mike Doughney.
jst...@panix.com
Mike Doughney wrote:
> In article <1129812315....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >jimbo wrote:
> >> Check out the meditation information network and look under tm and tm
> >> siddhi techniques
> >
> >Yes, I'm very familiar with what is on that site.
>
> Despite your familiarity, or not, with that site (that would be *my*
> website), you are, as usual, deliberately posting falsehoods about
> both it, and me.
Mike, your intellectual and factual dishonesty is
once again on full display here.
> >Thing is, the Meditation Information Network (Minet
> >for short) is run by somebody who thinks it's all a
> >scam
>
> A *scam*, eh? I hardly have to characterize it as that. Anybody
> reading this newsgroup would have to conclude that the TM program has
> either attracted or produced some of the more remarkably disfunctional
> human beings on the planet, who at some point in their lives paid for
> the privilege of participating in the TM program.
<chortle> Q.E.D.
> I am, of course, referring to you, Judy, and some of the other
> resident entities here on this newsgroup.
Translation: Those who disagree with Mike--about
anything--are dysfunctional, by (his) definition.
And you and the rest of you
> are a fantastic advertisement for the ineffectiveness and general
> stupidity of the TM program, something that I could never even begin
> to match, if I really were out to do some kind of "damage" to the
> pathetic crumbling remains of the "TM organization." Which leads me to
> lie #1 in your post:
>
> >and essentially wants to do the TM organization
> >as much damage as possible.
>
> As I wrote right there on the page with those oh-so-sacred TM mantras,
> today I care very little about "Transcendental Meditation" and the
> groups that have something to do with it.
That may be, but when you put up the page, you cared
a great deal. And since you haven't taken it down,
your protestations that you don't care *now* are
disingenuous, to say the least. Not to mention your
current hysterical rant.
> But if you're going to
> get on this newsgroup and lie about me, by name or indirectly... well,
> don't expect me not to notice.
I haven't lied about you, Mike, and you know it.
> The idea that I can somehow cause "damage" to the pathetic remains
> of the "TM organization" with a handful of nonsense words on a webpage
> is just plain silly.
I didn't say you *were* causing damage, I said you
*wanted* to cause damage.
You and others like you do more damage to the
> organization, day in and day out, right here on this single newsgroup,
> than an outsider could ever dream of doing, not to mention the
> self-inflicted damage the leaders and a few celebrity hangers-on
> regularly contribute everytime they open their mouths.
But unfortunately Mike won't be able to document
any such damage.
> Now, time for lie #2, and boy, is this one a real whopper:
>
> >One of the ways he tries to do this is to put up
> >abbreviated instructions for TM and the TM-Sidhis and
> >tell readers that's all there is to them, that they
> >can learn and practice what the TM organization
> >teaches simply by following those instructions,
> >without having to pay for them.
>
> Now if this perenially clueless specimen of a TM participant actually
> were as familiar with my website as she claims to be, she would have
> first read and understood the disclaimer and my responses to the
> e-mail I have recieved, where I specifically and truthfully say
> otherwise, that the page of so-called "techniques" was not placed
> there to be used as part of anybody's meditation practice. I wrote, on
> http://www.minet.org/mantras.html:
Your disclaimer is (a) lip service and (b) designed to
protect you from legal reprisals from the TMO.
I'll change "tell" to "suggest" in what I wrote above,
but that's it. That's why the mantras and instructions
(and yes, they are instructions) are on the site, in
the hope that folks will disregard your disclaimer and
try them. You go on yourself to admit that's what
people do. If you genuinely didn't want them to, you'd
take the page down.
<snip>
> lunch. Not much I can do about that, since it seems that the singular
> great success of the TM movement is the cultural popularization of the
> idea that some silly little nonsense sound called a "mantra" is
> somehow sacred, precious, worth paying for, and Really Really
> Special.
And here's some more dishonesty from Mike: He is well
aware that TM isn't selling mantras but rather a
technique for using mantras.
(Vaj might disagree with you about whether mantras
are just "some silly little nonsense sound," but he
won't say so, because the enemy of his enemy is his
friend.)
<snip>
> >But it *isn't* all there is to them, by a long shot.
> >If people try to learn TM and the TM-Sidhis by
> >following the instructions he has on his site, they
> >aren't going to get anything like the same results as
> >if they'd learned them from people trained to teach
> >them.
>
> There are no instructions to anybody on my website.
Yes, there are, Mike. You even go on to admit it:
> None. Just a bunch
> of nonsense words and some notes about the process that a TM teacher
> is supposed to go through when *they* go about *their* meditation
> instruction. Checking notes are there, too, but how you'd use checking
> notes on yourself I don't know.
>
> A bunch of nonsense words on a webpage do not constitute meditation
> instruction. Nor does a page that provides a few hints about what one
> might expect if they were to go spend an obscene amount of money on
> meditation instruction from the TM movement
Yes, they do, as far as those who read them are
concerned, and you know it.
<snip>
> By all means, please point out where it is somewhere hidden to my mere
> middle-aged human eyesight where it says anywhere on the minet.org
> website anything like "you can meditate too, and Not Pay A Cent, and
> Here's How!"
That's the intention, and that's what readers understand.
And again, you know it. You even admit it.
> >And they will decide, as the proprietor of the site
> >intends, that the techniques are ineffective, without
> >ever having learned to practice them properly. Even
> >if they do have the money to learn from the TM
> >organization, they never will.
>
> Hell, it doesn't take my website for anybody to figure out "that the
> techniques are ineffective." Just a few minutes spent here reading
> this clueless blathering by those who currently practice the
> movement's techniques would be more than enough to send sane people
> running to safety. If this is what a newsgroup of meditators looks and
> sounds like, why would anybody in their worst nightmare want to learn TM?
Perhaps because the people who support TM here do not
feel the need to lie, and those who are interested in
trashing it do?
> >With regard to the TM-Sidhis, for example, when you
> >learn them from the TM organization, you're provided
> >with a great deal of context to understand how they
> >work; you get much more detailed instructions for the
> >practice; and you get specific personal assistance if
> >you find you're having problems with the practice.
>
> Nope, there's no TM-Sidhi instruction on minet.org, either.
Yes, there is.
> >It's a little bit as if somebody were to say that to
> >learn to play the piano, you don't have to pay money
> >for piano lessons; all that's necessary is to learn
> >which little black note on a musical score corresponds
> >to which key on the piano, and then gave you a list of
> >the correspondences. The list may be accurate, but
> >it isn't going to be much help in learning to play
> >a concerto the way it was intended to sound.
>
> A mind is not a piano, neither is it a pool of water with bubbles
> coming up from the bottom, nor is meditation like playing a piano, nor
> is meditation instruction anything like piano lessons. A woman is not
> a swimming pool. Excessive use of metaphor and simile may be hazardous
> to your health. Thank you for your attention!
Non sequitur. Notice that Mike doesn't seem to be
able to actually *address* my metaphor.
> Time for one last little lie from this round of verbiage from Judy
> Stein:
>
> >So the instructions on Minet are really pretty much
> >useless.
>
> There are no instructions for anybody to do anything on minet.org.
Yes, there are.
> >I agree with you that the TM organization is charging
> >a lot more than it should for instruction. But that's
> >just the way it is, unfortunately.
>
> Yup. Just the way it is. The long-term practice of TM produces this
> kind of behavior that is clearly evident in this collection of
> marginally sane newsgroup participants, one of whom lies about and
> libels a person with a website that has just a little bit of basic
> information about what the TM movement sells, or used to be selling.
The liar here is you, Mike, not me.
Thanks for providing such a generous helping of proof
for what I said about Minet and the motivations behind it.
Mike Doughney
a man who can't edit quoted text <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>Mike Doughney 'innocently' attempts to
>proclaim that others never try to practise
>TM from having read his website. Posts that
>have been received just on this forum over
>the years, indicate otherwise. Judy's
>conclusions in that regard cannot be
>disputed. In my view your intentions are
>dishonorable, Mike.
Listen, kiddo. I suppose somebody could walk around claiming a
operation manual for a VCR constitutes a religious text and includes
instruction on religious ritual. That doesn't make the publishers of
the manual complicit in what other misguided individuals might do with
it. No VCR manual that I know of carries a disclaimer that says, "Not
to be used as a religious text."
Same goes for minet.org. I cannot be held liable for other people's
stupidity, or their insistence that a page full of gibberish is
somehow valuable. Back in the old days when those mantras were first
disclosed here, nobody - absolutely no one - ever suggested that
anyone who posted them, posted them as an alternate means of
instruction in TM. Almost all the complaint centered on the offense of
the disclosure to the public of such "private" material.
I'm looking at a newsgroup thread from December 1993 where Patrick
Ryan posted the mantra list and some notes on the method with the
subject line "FREE TM." No one accused him then of even suggesting
that people should meditate using what he had posted!
This phenomenon of other people using the mantra list as some kind of
instructional manual is somewhat new - and unanticipated by me or
anyone else for that matter. To my knowledge, nobody has ever
seriously suggested to anyone that they use the online list of mantras
for meditation. You both are nuts to come back more than a decade
after the fact to suggest that, solely because a few people over that
decade were looking for a mantra list to actually use, that was what
critics intended; critics who do not or no longer meditate and who
don't recommend that others meditate!
I would expect that Judy's "conclusions" would be from somewhere well
outside the realm of common sense, as they always are. No surprise
there. Your continued long-distance ass-kissing is also no surprise.
As for your attempt to label my intentions as "dishonorable," the only
things that I might be dishonoring are the nostalgic reminisces of a
few fanatical holdouts - you included. The TM movement and its methods
are pretty much history, an odd cultural artifact, a bit of
trivia. It's all very much over. You all are doing a wonderful job
of showing the world what a peculiar remnant of a long-dead movement
you are, with your over-the-top reaction to my post as if I'm some
fire-breathing heretic from hell. Which I'm not, I'm just some guy with a
few pages on the web that you still let under your skin to drive you
nuts; and it shows.
Mike Doughney
<jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Mike Doughney wrote:
>> In article <1129812315....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> The idea that I can somehow cause "damage" to the pathetic remains
>> of the "TM organization" with a handful of nonsense words on a webpage
>> is just plain silly.
>
>I didn't say you *were* causing damage, I said you
>*wanted* to cause damage.
More delusional nonsense from Judy Stein. I have never demonstrated
intent to "damage" the TM movement and have never said anything of
that nature. As I wrote way back on February 27, 1994:
: Whoa, there. I would be a fool to try to "destroy" TM. A 3 billion
: (oops, thousand million) dollar company that must gross millions
: each month (which I think is an accurate characterization of the
: "movement") will hardly be affected by my few words here.
:
: However, those considering becoming involved with this organization
: or purchasing its products have the right to obtain information from
: other sources, not just the TM movement. That's why I'm here.
So, I suppose that if you believed I was causing damage, that the mere
provision of accurate information about the TM movement causes
"damage."
I suppose that keeping consumers in the dark about products and
services they are buying is a value in the bizarre twisted world that
you inhabit, but that is not true where I live.
> You and others like you do more damage to the
>> organization, day in and day out, right here on this single newsgroup,
>> than an outsider could ever dream of doing, not to mention the
>> self-inflicted damage the leaders and a few celebrity hangers-on
>> regularly contribute everytime they open their mouths.
>
>But unfortunately Mike won't be able to document
>any such damage.
But certain things are self-evident to everyone else, if not to you
and a few fanatical holdouts.
>Your disclaimer is (a) lip service and (b) designed to
>protect you from legal reprisals from the TMO.
No, my disclaimer is there kind of like the "Caution: contents are
hot" warning on the coffee cup. It puts into words what was heretofore
common sense, as I have already pointed out above, since it seems
there are inevitably a few who will ignore the obvious.
>I'll change "tell" to "suggest" in what I wrote above,
>but that's it. That's why the mantras and instructions
>(and yes, they are instructions) are on the site, in
>the hope that folks will disregard your disclaimer and
>try them. You go on yourself to admit that's what
>people do. If you genuinely didn't want them to, you'd
>take the page down.
Still looking for those instructions on my site, since you've been so
helpful and specifically defined what meditation instruction is, in
your mind:
>And here's some more dishonesty from Mike: He is well
>aware that TM isn't selling mantras but rather a
>technique for using mantras.
Which means, of course, to a reasonable person, that if I put up a
list of mantras without the secret special sauce of a technique, then
I must not, by definition, be offering instruction. But in the bizarre
world of the fanatic that you inhabit, instruction in meditation is a
"technique for using mantras" if the TM movement does it, and a "list
of mantras" if some critic is involved.
>> A bunch of nonsense words on a webpage do not constitute meditation
>> instruction. Nor does a page that provides a few hints about what one
>> might expect if they were to go spend an obscene amount of money on
>> meditation instruction from the TM movement
>
>Yes, they do, as far as those who read them are
>concerned, and you know it.
So, let's see. You guys insist over and over that you can't learn
meditation from a book, or online, and now when someone comes along
and reads a mantra list that happens to come from my website, and
on their own and no matter what I write they then think they can learn
meditation from that, that because somebody somewhere thinks that, I am
now offering meditation instruction?
Do you actually ever sit down and try to read the nonsense that you're
writing?
><snip>
>> By all means, please point out where it is somewhere hidden to my mere
>> middle-aged human eyesight where it says anywhere on the minet.org
>> website anything like "you can meditate too, and Not Pay A Cent, and
>> Here's How!"
>
>That's the intention, and that's what readers understand.
>And again, you know it. You even admit it.
Again, you're just spouting nonsensical ranting. Again, you provide a
great advertisement for the kind of irrationality that comes from
long-term affiliation with the TM movement and the use of its products.
>> Nope, there's no TM-Sidhi instruction on minet.org, either.
>
>Yes, there is.
Even more hilarious, since you already went over how much "context"
that I do not provide is part of TM-Sidhi instruction.
>> >It's a little bit as if somebody were to say that to
>> >learn to play the piano, you don't have to pay money
>> >for piano lessons; all that's necessary is to learn
>> >which little black note on a musical score corresponds
>> >to which key on the piano, and then gave you a list of
>> >the correspondences. The list may be accurate, but
>> >it isn't going to be much help in learning to play
>> >a concerto the way it was intended to sound.
>>
>> A mind is not a piano, neither is it a pool of water with bubbles
>> coming up from the bottom, nor is meditation like playing a piano, nor
>> is meditation instruction anything like piano lessons. A woman is not
>> a swimming pool. Excessive use of metaphor and simile may be hazardous
>> to your health. Thank you for your attention!
>
>Non sequitur. Notice that Mike doesn't seem to be
>able to actually *address* my metaphor.
There is nothing to address, since a mind is not a piano. If you can't
say it in plain English, perhaps you're not saying anything!
jst...@panix.com
Mike Doughney wrote:
> In article <1129937789.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >Mike Doughney wrote:
> >> In article <1129812315....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The idea that I can somehow cause "damage" to the pathetic remains
> >> of the "TM organization" with a handful of nonsense words on a webpage
> >> is just plain silly.
> >
> >I didn't say you *were* causing damage, I said you
> >*wanted* to cause damage.
>
> More delusional nonsense from Judy Stein. I have never demonstrated
> intent to "damage" the TM movement and have never said anything of
> that nature.
Good heavens, you don't have to; it's all too obvious
from what you say and do.
> As I wrote way back on February 27, 1994:
>
> : Whoa, there. I would be a fool to try to "destroy" TM. A 3 billion
> : (oops, thousand million) dollar company that must gross millions
> : each month (which I think is an accurate characterization of the
> : "movement") will hardly be affected by my few words here.
Oh, I thought it was "the pathetic remains of the
'TM organization'" that you couldn't damage.
Make up your mind, please. (Although it seems either
way, you're a fool.)
> : However, those considering becoming involved with this organization
> : or purchasing its products have the right to obtain information from
> : other sources, not just the TM movement. That's why I'm here.
>
> So, I suppose that if you believed I was causing damage, that the mere
> provision of accurate information about the TM movement causes
> "damage."
Nope, not referring to accurate information.
> I suppose that keeping consumers in the dark about products and
> services they are buying is a value in the bizarre twisted world that
> you inhabit, but that is not true where I live.
You know, Mike, you used to be a lot better at
this. You've lost your touch.
> > You and others like you do more damage to the
> >> organization, day in and day out, right here on this single newsgroup,
> >> than an outsider could ever dream of doing, not to mention the
> >> self-inflicted damage the leaders and a few celebrity hangers-on
> >> regularly contribute everytime they open their mouths.
> >
> >But unfortunately Mike won't be able to document
> >any such damage.
>
> But certain things are self-evident to everyone else, if not to you
> and a few fanatical holdouts.
Uh-huh.
> >Your disclaimer is (a) lip service and (b) designed to
> >protect you from legal reprisals from the TMO.
>
> No, my disclaimer is there kind of like the "Caution: contents are
> hot" warning on the coffee cup. It puts into words what was heretofore
> common sense, as I have already pointed out above, since it seems
> there are inevitably a few who will ignore the obvious.
I thought you just got done saying TM was totally
ineffective. If so, why the caution statement?
> >I'll change "tell" to "suggest" in what I wrote above,
> >but that's it. That's why the mantras and instructions
> >(and yes, they are instructions) are on the site, in
> >the hope that folks will disregard your disclaimer and
> >try them. You go on yourself to admit that's what
> >people do. If you genuinely didn't want them to, you'd
> >take the page down.
>
> Still looking for those instructions on my site, since you've been so
> helpful and specifically defined what meditation instruction is, in
> your mind:
>
> >And here's some more dishonesty from Mike: He is well
> >aware that TM isn't selling mantras but rather a
> >technique for using mantras.
>
> Which means, of course, to a reasonable person, that if I put up a
> list of mantras without the secret special sauce of a technique, then
> I must not, by definition, be offering instruction. But in the bizarre
> world of the fanatic that you inhabit, instruction in meditation is a
> "technique for using mantras" if the TM movement does it, and a "list
> of mantras" if some critic is involved.
Well, no, the instruction would be "some notes about
the process that a TM teacher is supposed to go through
when *they* go about *their* meditation instruction.
Checking notes are there, too, but how you'd use checking
notes on yourself I don't know."
Except that you do know, of course.
> >> A bunch of nonsense words on a webpage do not constitute meditation
> >> instruction. Nor does a page that provides a few hints about what one
> >> might expect if they were to go spend an obscene amount of money on
> >> meditation instruction from the TM movement
> >
> >Yes, they do, as far as those who read them are
> >concerned, and you know it.
>
> So, let's see. You guys insist over and over that you can't learn
> meditation from a book, or online, and now when someone comes along
> and reads a mantra list that happens to come from my website, and
> on their own and no matter what I write they then think they can learn
> meditation from that, that because somebody somewhere thinks that, I am
> now offering meditation instruction?
Yes, because you know that's what they'll do and
intend for them to do it. (And don't forget all the
instructions for using the mantra.)
> Do you actually ever sit down and try to read the nonsense that you're
> writing?
You're floundering, Mike.
> ><snip>
> >> By all means, please point out where it is somewhere hidden to my mere
> >> middle-aged human eyesight where it says anywhere on the minet.org
> >> website anything like "you can meditate too, and Not Pay A Cent, and
> >> Here's How!"
> >
> >That's the intention, and that's what readers understand.
> >And again, you know it. You even admit it.
>
> Again, you're just spouting nonsensical ranting. Again, you provide a
> great advertisement for the kind of irrationality that comes from
> long-term affiliation with the TM movement and the use of its products.
Magical thinking, Mike. Accurate statements don't
somehow turn into nonsensical ranting just because
that's what you call them.
> >> Nope, there's no TM-Sidhi instruction on minet.org, either.
> >
> >Yes, there is.
>
> Even more hilarious, since you already went over how much "context"
> that I do not provide is part of TM-Sidhi instruction.
Right. The instruction you provide is not enough
for people to practice the TM-Sidhis correctly, but
you don't bother to tell people that. You allow them
to think that's all there is to the program.
> >> >It's a little bit as if somebody were to say that to
> >> >learn to play the piano, you don't have to pay money
> >> >for piano lessons; all that's necessary is to learn
> >> >which little black note on a musical score corresponds
> >> >to which key on the piano, and then gave you a list of
> >> >the correspondences. The list may be accurate, but
> >> >it isn't going to be much help in learning to play
> >> >a concerto the way it was intended to sound.
> >>
> >> A mind is not a piano, neither is it a pool of water with bubbles
> >> coming up from the bottom, nor is meditation like playing a piano, nor
> >> is meditation instruction anything like piano lessons. A woman is not
> >> a swimming pool. Excessive use of metaphor and simile may be hazardous
> >> to your health. Thank you for your attention!
> >
> >Non sequitur. Notice that Mike doesn't seem to be
> >able to actually *address* my metaphor.
>
> There is nothing to address, since a mind is not a piano. If you can't
> say it in plain English, perhaps you're not saying anything!
If an analogy were the same as what it's analogizing,
it would be an identity. The analogy I used is entirely
adequate to convey the idea. That the mind is not a piano
could hardly be less relevant.
Mike Doughney
In article <djc5r...@news3.newsguy.com>, Mike Doughney <mi...@mtd.com> wrote:
>
>So, I suppose that if you believed I was causing damage, that the mere
>provision of accurate information about the TM movement causes
>"damage."
So, I suppose that if you believed I was intent on causing damage,
that the mere provision of accurate information about the TM movement
could potentially cause "damage."
Steve Ralph
"Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
news:djbpn...@news1.newsguy.com...
LOL! Someone rattled your cage eh? Still full of the usual bile and
hate eh?
>>jimbo wrote:
>>> Check out the meditation information network and look under tm and tm
>>> siddhi techniques
>>
>>Yes, I'm very familiar with what is on that site.
>
> Despite your familiarity, or not, with that site (that would be *my*
> website), you are, as usual, deliberately posting falsehoods about
> both it, and me.
>
>>Thing is, the Meditation Information Network (Minet
>>for short) is run by somebody who thinks it's all a
>>scam
>
> A *scam*, eh? I hardly have to characterize it as that. Anybody
> reading this newsgroup would have to conclude that the TM program has
> either attracted or produced some of the more remarkably disfunctional
> human beings on the planet,
Yeah, you for a start doughball, though I suspect you were always short of a
few
circuits
> who at some point in their lives paid for
> the privilege of participating in the TM program.
>
> I am, of course, referring to you, Judy, and some of the other
> resident entities here on this newsgroup. And you and the rest of you
> are a fantastic advertisement for the ineffectiveness and general
> stupidity of the TM program, something that I could never even begin
> to match, if I really were out to do some kind of "damage" to the
> pathetic crumbling remains of the "TM organization." Which leads me to
> lie #1 in your post:
>
>>and essentially wants to do the TM organization
>>as much damage as possible.
>
> As I wrote right there on the page with those oh-so-sacred TM mantras,
> today I care very little about "Transcendental Meditation" and the
> groups that have something to do with it. But if you're going to
> get on this newsgroup and lie about me, by name or indirectly... well,
> don't expect me not to notice.
You posted that information to cause damage. Why else would you do it? All
this
mealy-mouthed verbage about freedom of information is just a transparent
attempt
top justify your actions and fools very few.
sr
Steve Ralph
"Vaj." <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote in message
news:BF7EEC62.10A4D%vajra...@not-shunyata.org...
> Mike:
>
> Thanks for the welcome wind of fresh air here! Yes, Judy is a chronic and
> pathological liar--although she often projects that deeply rooted vice
> onto
> others with abandon. It is my hope that eventually there will be a 12-step
> group for such people. Until then, tough love is the order of the day.
What a predictable response.
> Godspeed!
Unlikely in Doughballs case.
sr
Steve Ralph
> In article <1129937789.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>Mike Doughney wrote:
>>> In article <1129812315....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>>> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The idea that I can somehow cause "damage" to the pathetic remains
>>> of the "TM organization" with a handful of nonsense words on a webpage
>>> is just plain silly.
>>
>>I didn't say you *were* causing damage, I said you
>>*wanted* to cause damage.
>
> More delusional nonsense from Judy Stein. I have never demonstrated
> intent to "damage" the TM movement and have never said anything of
> that nature. As I wrote way back on February 27, 1994:
>
> : Whoa, there. I would be a fool to try to "destroy" TM. A 3 billion
> : (oops, thousand million) dollar company that must gross millions
> : each month (which I think is an accurate characterization of the
> : "movement") will hardly be affected by my few words here.
> :
> : However, those considering becoming involved with this organization
> : or purchasing its products have the right to obtain information from
> : other sources, not just the TM movement. That's why I'm here.
>
> So, I suppose that if you believed I was causing damage, that the mere
> provision of accurate
accurate?
>information about the TM movement causes
> "damage."
Your information is not about the TM movement for the most part,
it is about the TM technique. There is quite a difference, how
convenient for you.
sr
Steve Ralph
Exactly. Glad to see you moved on so easily.
>
> Klingon, Judy. You're just a Klingon.
>
Who knows, maybe you will develop a sense of humour one day.
sr
Steve Ralph
"Vaj" <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote in message
news:BF7EB758.55B%vajra...@not-shunyata.org...
>
>
>
> On 10/21/05 10:54 AM, in article L9mdne7KyOg...@giganews.com,
> "John
> Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>> Vaj has very little knowledge of
>> the subtle aspects of the TM instruction and
>> its direct experience in practical terms.
>
> Quite the opposite, I have lots of direct experience. It just bothers TB's
> to no end that I won't use TM buzzwords to parrot the same phrases over
> and
> over again.
TB's. You're the one using buzzwords.
> He
>> attempts to discredit TM solely on the basis
>> of other teachings and systems, while
>> failing to address TM on its own terms.
>
> No. I think all the practices like TM--and there are numerous people who
> teach this same technique--have some value for learning the basics of
> meditation. They're fast and easy--and that's a good thing. In some people
> that may be a life practice. But most people move on.
Like you did I suppose.
> He
>> just doesn't know what those terms are.
>
> No, I just don't parrot them like a TM robot (i.e. you and Judy). I'd
> rather
> find the source of the teaching and learn it from the source rather than a
> watered down system passed on in English and pseudo-scientific jargon.
>
> Hey, whatever turns you on. It is a fad who's time has passed. Nature is
> no
> longer supporting it. Sad but true.
>
How wonderful, we have someone here who is such an accomplished seer that
he knows exactly what nature is and isn't supporting.
sr
John Manning
Uh-huh. Seems your the one with spit and
vinegar, Mike.
jst...@panix.com
Mike Doughney wrote:
> In article <XZWdnWYOg91...@giganews.com>,
> a man who can't edit quoted text <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> >Mike Doughney 'innocently' attempts to
> >proclaim that others never try to practise
> >TM from having read his website. Posts that
> >have been received just on this forum over
> >the years, indicate otherwise. Judy's
> >conclusions in that regard cannot be
> >disputed. In my view your intentions are
> >dishonorable, Mike.
>
> Listen, kiddo. I suppose somebody could walk around claiming a
> operation manual for a VCR constitutes a religious text and includes
> instruction on religious ritual. That doesn't make the publishers of
> the manual complicit in what other misguided individuals might do with
> it. No VCR manual that I know of carries a disclaimer that says, "Not
> to be used as a religious text."
This is total gibberish. Hey, Mike, the mind is not a VCR.
> Same goes for minet.org. I cannot be held liable for other people's
> stupidity, or their insistence that a page full of gibberish is
> somehow valuable. Back in the old days when those mantras were first
> disclosed here, nobody - absolutely no one - ever suggested that
> anyone who posted them, posted them as an alternate means of
> instruction in TM. Almost all the complaint centered on the offense of
> the disclosure to the public of such "private" material.
>
> I'm looking at a newsgroup thread from December 1993 where Patrick
> Ryan posted the mantra list and some notes on the method with the
> subject line "FREE TM." No one accused him then of even suggesting
> that people should meditate using what he had posted!
Actually the fact that anti-TMers make the mantras available
to tempt people into using them and finding them ineffective
because they haven't been properly instructed has been
pointed out here many times, and Mike knows it.
> This phenomenon of other people using the mantra list as some kind of
> instructional manual is somewhat new - and unanticipated by me or
> anyone else for that matter. To my knowledge, nobody has ever
> seriously suggested to anyone that they use the online list of mantras
> for meditation. You both are nuts to come back more than a decade
> after the fact to suggest that, solely because a few people over that
> decade were looking for a mantra list to actually use, that was what
> critics intended; critics who do not or no longer meditate and who
> don't recommend that others meditate!
This is just *so* dishonest in so many ways.
First--and anybody can verify this--Minet doesn't just
have a list of the mantras, it contains the complete
verbal instructions for practicing TM, including the
script the TM teacher uses for personal instruction and
all the checking notes. Those plus the mantra list
constitute a complete "instructional manual" for the
basic TM procedure.
Of course, you cannot learn TM properly from such an
instructional manual. But Minet doesn't tell you that.
Disclaimer aside--and as Mike has said, many folks
don't take the disclaimer seriously--readers have no way
of knowing that TM cannot be learned by reading words on
a page. If Mike had not intended for people to think
it could be, he could easily have added a note to that
effect.
As far as the disclaimer is concerned, by telling readers
*not* to use the instructions for meditation, Mike clearly
suggests that they *could* be used that way. So the
disclaimer actually does the opposite of what Mike claims:
the cookies are in the blue jar in the cupboard above the
refrigerator, but they're not there for you to eat.
And of course all the ancillary instructions that are
given during the three days of checking are omitted;
many of these are crucial for effective practice. Mike
doesn't tell you that either.
> I would expect that Judy's "conclusions" would be from somewhere well
> outside the realm of common sense, as they always are. No surprise
> there. Your continued long-distance ass-kissing is also no surprise.
>
> As for your attempt to label my intentions as "dishonorable," the only
> things that I might be dishonoring are the nostalgic reminisces of a
> few fanatical holdouts - you included. The TM movement and its methods
> are pretty much history, an odd cultural artifact, a bit of
> trivia. It's all very much over. You all are doing a wonderful job
> of showing the world what a peculiar remnant of a long-dead movement
> you are, with your over-the-top reaction to my post as if I'm some
> fire-breathing heretic from hell. Which I'm not, I'm just some guy with a
> few pages on the web that you still let under your skin to drive you
> nuts; and it shows.
Let's remember how this started: Jimbo wanted to know what
the sutras were in Sanskrit so he could practice the
TM-Sidhis. I told him, twice, that he could only learn
the TM-Sidhis techniques properly from the TMO, and that
if he couldn't afford the price, he was better off not
even trying.
He pointed to the instructions for the TM-Sidhis on Minet
(and it's more than just the sutras, it also gives the
very basic instructions for practice) as, he thought,
evidence that there was no need for him to take the course
because the instructions were right there on the Web. All
he needed, he thought, was the Sanskrit for the sutras, and
he'd be all set.
Others also told him he couldn't learn from a Web site even
if he had the Sanskrit. In other words, we were doing just
what Mike claims to be doing with his disclaimer, telling
him not to use those instructions.
I then pointed out that the proprietor of the site was
virulently anti-TM and suggested that he, Mike, had put
the instructional material on the Web site to tempt folks
to do exactly what Jimbo thought he could do. I said
Mike knows anyone who tries this is highly unlikely to
achieve good results and would therefore not even consider
learning from the TMO.
And that's when Mike left his first hysterical post
accusing me of lying but going on to demonstrate with
crystal clarity that I had told it exactly as it was.
If anybody has been driven nuts, it's Mike, because he
knows the TM supporters here have his number.
Mike Doughney
Steve Ralph <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
>news:djc5r...@news3.newsguy.com...
>> provision of accurate
>
>accurate?
Yes. Complaints that the information about the techniques on the
website is somehow inaccurate never seem to be followed up with
details on exactly what isn't accurate, and that's been consistently
true for more than a decade.
The most common objection is that "you can't learn TM from a website."
The website is not there to provide instruction in TM or any other
meditation. Nor could such a website substitute for the actual
interaction that takes place during such instruction. Other than that,
I believe the contents of the website are indeed accurate.
>>information about the TM movement causes
>> "damage."
>
>Your information is not about the TM movement for the most part,
>it is about the TM technique. There is quite a difference, how
>convenient for you.
Here we go again; another numbnuts who wants to completely separate TM
practice from the TM movement. They cannot be separated. The TM
technique was a creation of, and the premiere product of, the
movement; the movement is a group of people who are the product of
long-term practice of the TM technique and consumption of the
movement's products. If you want to know what the benefits of TM
practice are, just look to the only organization on earth that is
composed only of people who practice it. The crumbling wreckage of the
movement, all of the weirdness and outrageous public pronouncements,
and some goofy guy in a Burger King cap are the kind of results that
can be expected when groups of people meditate. So why would anyone
want to do that?
Mike Doughney
<jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Mike Doughney wrote:
>
>> As I wrote way back on February 27, 1994:
>>
>> : Whoa, there. I would be a fool to try to "destroy" TM. A 3 billion
>> : (oops, thousand million) dollar company that must gross millions
>> : each month (which I think is an accurate characterization of the
>> : "movement") will hardly be affected by my few words here.
>
>Oh, I thought it was "the pathetic remains of the
>'TM organization'" that you couldn't damage.
>
>Make up your mind, please. (Although it seems either
>way, you're a fool.)
And now we have Judy Stein demonstrating one of the peculiar traits of
the hard-core fanatic: the inability to understand change over
time. Back when I wrote that - more than eleven years ago - the
movement was, or at least seemed to be, functioning. Today, as far as
I can tell, it's not; "pathetic remains of the TM organization" is
probably a pretty accurate description of it.
Either way, my little website with some gibberish they used to call
"mantras" will hardly have any impact on the organization, since it's
doing a great job of self-destructing on its own. But maybe you're
helping a bit with your continuing contribution to this newsgroup,
demonstrating to the world what kind of personality results from
long-term practice of TM techniques, and fanatical devotion centered
on some nostalgic memory of the organization that sold them to you.
>You know, Mike, you used to be a lot better at
>this. You've lost your touch.
The only thing that's changed is that you're even more of a fanatic
about this stuff, even more clueless about what a spectacle you're
making of yourself, and even less aware that you're fighting for
something that's not worth defending.
>> >Your disclaimer is (a) lip service and (b) designed to
>> >protect you from legal reprisals from the TMO.
>>
>> No, my disclaimer is there kind of like the "Caution: contents are
>> hot" warning on the coffee cup. It puts into words what was heretofore
>> common sense, as I have already pointed out above, since it seems
>> there are inevitably a few who will ignore the obvious.
>
>I thought you just got done saying TM was totally
>ineffective. If so, why the caution statement?
Another example of your increasing ineptitude. I said, "it puts into
words what was heretofore common sense." It used to be common sense
that people wouldn't try to learn to meditate from a website clearly
marked as being critical of meditation, in the same way that it was
common sense that coffee is hot.
And you're still putting words in my mouth, since I don't recall ever
saying that "TM was totally ineffective." But like the usual fanatic I
don't expect you to view me in anything other than black and white terms.
>Well, no, the instruction would be "some notes about
>the process that a TM teacher is supposed to go through
>when *they* go about *their* meditation instruction.
>Checking notes are there, too, but how you'd use checking
>notes on yourself I don't know."
>
>Except that you do know, of course.
I know, what? What is it that you are evading? You all insist that TM
instruction can only be given one-on-one with a teacher of TM. I put
up a few notes on what form that interaction between two people
takes. Please fill in the details on how that interaction between two
people can be accomplished by one reading a few notes about it.
>> So, let's see. You guys insist over and over that you can't learn
>> meditation from a book, or online, and now when someone comes along
>> and reads a mantra list that happens to come from my website, and
>> on their own and no matter what I write they then think they can learn
>> meditation from that, that because somebody somewhere thinks that, I am
>> now offering meditation instruction?
>
>Yes, because you know that's what they'll do and
>intend for them to do it. (And don't forget all the
>instructions for using the mantra.)
Again, the idea that somebody would learn meditation from a critic of
meditation simply defies common sense, and wasn't anticipated by me
nor the newsgroup participants of a decade ago. How about addressing
that obvious inconsistency first?
>> >> Nope, there's no TM-Sidhi instruction on minet.org, either.
>> >
>> >Yes, there is.
>>
>> Even more hilarious, since you already went over how much "context"
>> that I do not provide is part of TM-Sidhi instruction.
>
>Right. The instruction you provide is not enough
>for people to practice the TM-Sidhis correctly, but
>you don't bother to tell people that. You allow them
>to think that's all there is to the program.
Still looking for whatever it is on my website that you're calling
"instruction," since I certainly didn't put anything like that there.
Mike Doughney
>> operation manual for a VCR constitutes a religious text and includes
>> instruction on religious ritual. That doesn't make the publishers of
>> the manual complicit in what other misguided individuals might do with
>> it. No VCR manual that I know of carries a disclaimer that says, "Not
>> to be used as a religious text."
>
>This is total gibberish. Hey, Mike, the mind is not a VCR.
Damned right, in the same way that minet.org is not an instruction
manual for meditation!
>> I'm looking at a newsgroup thread from December 1993 where Patrick
>> Ryan posted the mantra list and some notes on the method with the
>> subject line "FREE TM." No one accused him then of even suggesting
>> that people should meditate using what he had posted!
>
>Actually the fact that anti-TMers make the mantras available
>to tempt people into using them and finding them ineffective
>because they haven't been properly instructed has been
>pointed out here many times, and Mike knows it.
"Tempt." How Judeo-Christian of you. I've sometimes thought that the
TM movement is just an opportunistic repackaging of the wishful
thinking of its often Jewish and Catholic participants, along with a
heavy dose of American consumerism and an incoherent mishmash of
Eastern mysticism. You provide yet another tiny suggestion of that
symbiosis.
No, it's not temptation, it's just a bunch of gibberish on a
webpage. The millions who learned TM from a teacher, found it
ineffective, and told all their friends certainly didn't need my
website to affirm their first-hand experience with the real thing!
Note to Judy: you're really losing it if you think that my website is
more important than the millions who learned TM and stopped practicing
in less than 6 months, and told their friends that that they'd wasted
their time and their money on something that didn't work!
>> This phenomenon of other people using the mantra list as some kind of
>> instructional manual is somewhat new - and unanticipated by me or
>> anyone else for that matter. To my knowledge, nobody has ever
>> seriously suggested to anyone that they use the online list of mantras
>> for meditation. You both are nuts to come back more than a decade
>> after the fact to suggest that, solely because a few people over that
>> decade were looking for a mantra list to actually use, that was what
>> critics intended; critics who do not or no longer meditate and who
>> don't recommend that others meditate!
>
>This is just *so* dishonest in so many ways.
>
>First--and anybody can verify this--Minet doesn't just
>have a list of the mantras, it contains the complete
>verbal instructions for practicing TM, including the
>script the TM teacher uses for personal instruction and
>all the checking notes. Those plus the mantra list
>constitute a complete "instructional manual" for the
>basic TM procedure.
That's right. It contains some information - which is probably not
complete - on how the technique is taught. The website, however, does
not provide another trained human being to teach it to you - which is
required to carry out what's in the script!
Therefore, what's on the website is not meditation instruction, since
as you and others keep insisting, that can only happen if two people
are involved, the teacher and the student, interacting in the way the
teacher was trained!
>Of course, you cannot learn TM properly from such an
>instructional manual. But Minet doesn't tell you that.
Now go back and read the website, where it says in multiple places
"Provided for historical and research purposes only."
If the page has that on top, then people have no business trying to do
anything with what's on that page other than reading it.
>Disclaimer aside--and as Mike has said, many folks
>don't take the disclaimer seriously--readers have no way
>of knowing that TM cannot be learned by reading words on
>a page. If Mike had not intended for people to think
>it could be, he could easily have added a note to that
>effect.
Already did. The page has long had "provided for research and
historical purposes only" at the top. For more than a year a much more
explicit disclaimer has been provided, including a separate section
where I make disparaging comments about people who try to meditate
using what's on the page.
Though given your evident inability to comprehend the English
language when it's spoken by critics, I doubt that you'd understand
that what is on the website serves exactly the same purpose of the
note that you suggest. It's just not worded exactly the way you want
it to be, and it won't be.
>As far as the disclaimer is concerned, by telling readers
>*not* to use the instructions for meditation, Mike clearly
>suggests that they *could* be used that way.
You're nuts. You reveal your true complaint, which is that no
disclaimer or notice is sufficient to satisfy you, you want all the
information gone since you apparently view it as some kind of
desecration of sacred teaching to have it out in public on a website.
There is of course nothing I can do about that, since the website is
not going away anytime soon.
>So the
>disclaimer actually does the opposite of what Mike claims:
>the cookies are in the blue jar in the cupboard above the
>refrigerator, but they're not there for you to eat.
You've gone completely off the deep end. You sound like a Christian
wingnut complaining about the availability of condoms, that they might
tempt someone to have sex!
>And of course all the ancillary instructions that are
>given during the three days of checking are omitted;
>many of these are crucial for effective practice. Mike
>doesn't tell you that either.
That's because, once again, the website is not provided for meditation
instruction! How many different ways do I have to say that? (Doesn't
matter, until the website is gone no disclaimer or notice will satisfy
this newsgroup's resident loony fanatic.)
jst...@panix.com
Mike Doughney wrote:
> In article <435a2002$0$6516$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
> Steve Ralph <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
> >news:djc5r...@news3.newsguy.com...
> >> So, I suppose that if you believed I was causing damage, that the mere
> >> provision of accurate
> >
> >accurate?
>
> Yes. Complaints that the information about the techniques on the
> website is somehow inaccurate never seem to be followed up with
> details on exactly what isn't accurate, and that's been consistently
> true for more than a decade.
>
> The most common objection is that "you can't learn TM from a website."
> The website is not there to provide instruction in TM or any other
> meditation. Nor could such a website substitute for the actual
> interaction that takes place during such instruction. Other than that,
> I believe the contents of the website are indeed accurate.
However, the Web site does not tell you that it
can't substitute for the personal interaction.
> >>information about the TM movement causes
> >> "damage."
> >
> >Your information is not about the TM movement for the most part,
> >it is about the TM technique. There is quite a difference, how
> >convenient for you.
>
> Here we go again; another numbnuts who wants to completely separate TM
> practice from the TM movement. They cannot be separated.
Of course they can. As you well know, it's entirely
possible to learn TM, then go off and practice it on
your own without ever having any contact with the
TMO again.
> The TM
> technique was a creation of, and the premiere product of, the
> movement;
Actually it was Maharishi's creation before there *was*
a movement.
> the movement is a group of people who are the product of
> long-term practice of the TM technique and consumption of the
> movement's products.
However, "the movement" does not include *all* the
long-term practiitioners of the TM technique by any
means.
If you want to know what the benefits of TM
> practice are, just look to the only organization on earth that is
> composed only of people who practice it.
Or look at some of the people who practice TM who
have nothing to do with the organization.
> The crumbling wreckage of the
> movement, all of the weirdness and outrageous public pronouncements,
> and some goofy guy in a Burger King cap are the kind of results that
> can be expected when groups of people meditate. So why would anyone
> want to do that?
You don't have to be part of the group in order to
meditate, first of all. Second, the movement is
composed of people who like being part of a movement,
and specifically *this* movement. Since there are
plenty of people who do TM who are *not* part of the
movement, clearly it isn't TM that's the cause of
the others being part of the movement.
Steve Ralph
> In article <435a2002$0$6516$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
> Steve Ralph <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
>>news:djc5r...@news3.newsguy.com...
>>> So, I suppose that if you believed I was causing damage, that the mere
>>> provision of accurate
>>
>>accurate?
>
> Yes. Complaints that the information about the techniques on the
> website is somehow inaccurate never seem to be followed up with
> details on exactly what isn't accurate, and that's been consistently
> true for more than a decade.
>
> The most common objection is that "you can't learn TM from a website."
> The website is not there to provide instruction in TM or any other
> meditation.
Of *course* it isn't. How convenient for your purpose.
>Nor could such a website substitute for the actual
> interaction that takes place during such instruction. Other than that,
> I believe the contents of the website are indeed accurate.
>
>>>information about the TM movement causes
>>> "damage."
>>
>>Your information is not about the TM movement for the most part,
>>it is about the TM technique. There is quite a difference, how
>>convenient for you.
>
> Here we go again; another numbnuts who wants to completely separate TM
> practice from the TM movement. They cannot be separated. The TM
> technique was a creation of,
No it wasn't. You can't even get that right.
SR
jst...@panix.com
Mike Doughney wrote:
> In article <1129948700.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >Mike Doughney wrote:
> >
> >> As I wrote way back on February 27, 1994:
> >>
> >> : Whoa, there. I would be a fool to try to "destroy" TM. A 3 billion
> >> : (oops, thousand million) dollar company that must gross millions
> >> : each month (which I think is an accurate characterization of the
> >> : "movement") will hardly be affected by my few words here.
> >
> >Oh, I thought it was "the pathetic remains of the
> >'TM organization'" that you couldn't damage.
> >
> >Make up your mind, please. (Although it seems either
> >way, you're a fool.)
>
> And now we have Judy Stein demonstrating one of the peculiar traits of
> the hard-core fanatic:
Mike, nobody with any sense thinks I'm any kind of
fanatic. You only diminish your credibility when
you use that label to describe me.
the inability to understand change over
> time. Back when I wrote that - more than eleven years ago - the
> movement was, or at least seemed to be, functioning. Today, as far as
> I can tell, it's not; "pathetic remains of the TM organization" is
> probably a pretty accurate description of it.
My point was that you used that earlier post to show
that you've been *consistent* over time. Just a bit of
irony there; sorry you missed it.
> Either way, my little website with some gibberish they used to call
> "mantras" will hardly have any impact on the organization, since it's
> doing a great job of self-destructing on its own. But maybe you're
> helping a bit with your continuing contribution to this newsgroup,
> demonstrating to the world what kind of personality results from
> long-term practice of TM techniques, and fanatical devotion centered
> on some nostalgic memory of the organization that sold them to you.
Nope, no fanatical devotion here, sorry.
> >You know, Mike, you used to be a lot better at
> >this. You've lost your touch.
>
> The only thing that's changed is that you're even more of a fanatic
> about this stuff, even more clueless about what a spectacle you're
> making of yourself, and even less aware that you're fighting for
> something that's not worth defending.
A fanatic, Mike, is one who is marked by "excessive
enthusiasm" and "intense uncritical devotion." You
don't see either in me.
> >> >Your disclaimer is (a) lip service and (b) designed to
> >> >protect you from legal reprisals from the TMO.
> >>
> >> No, my disclaimer is there kind of like the "Caution: contents are
> >> hot" warning on the coffee cup. It puts into words what was heretofore
> >> common sense, as I have already pointed out above, since it seems
> >> there are inevitably a few who will ignore the obvious.
> >
> >I thought you just got done saying TM was totally
> >ineffective. If so, why the caution statement?
>
> Another example of your increasing ineptitude. I said, "it puts into
> words what was heretofore common sense." It used to be common sense
> that people wouldn't try to learn to meditate from a website clearly
> marked as being critical of meditation, in the same way that it was
> common sense that coffee is hot.
Unresponsive. "Caution: contents are hot" warns
of the danger of harm. If TM has no effect, how
could it cause harm?
> And you're still putting words in my mouth, since I don't recall ever
> saying that "TM was totally ineffective." But like the usual fanatic I
> don't expect you to view me in anything other than black and white terms.
"Hell, it doesn't take my website for anybody to
figure out "'that the techniques are ineffective.'"
Are you now saying that the techniques are at least
somewhat effective?
> >Well, no, the instruction would be "some notes about
> >the process that a TM teacher is supposed to go through
> >when *they* go about *their* meditation instruction.
> >Checking notes are there, too, but how you'd use checking
> >notes on yourself I don't know."
> >
> >Except that you do know, of course.
>
> I know, what?
You know that one can use the checking notes
to figure out the instructions for TM practice,
of course.
What is it that you are evading? You all insist that TM
> instruction can only be given one-on-one with a teacher of TM. I put
> up a few notes on what form that interaction between two people
> takes. Please fill in the details on how that interaction between two
> people can be accomplished by one reading a few notes about it.
Disingenuous. The point, of course, is that it
cannot be, but you don't tell your readers that
interaction is crucial to properly learning TM.
> >> So, let's see. You guys insist over and over that you can't learn
> >> meditation from a book, or online, and now when someone comes along
> >> and reads a mantra list that happens to come from my website, and
> >> on their own and no matter what I write they then think they can learn
> >> meditation from that, that because somebody somewhere thinks that, I am
> >> now offering meditation instruction?
> >
> >Yes, because you know that's what they'll do and
> >intend for them to do it. (And don't forget all the
> >instructions for using the mantra.)
>
> Again, the idea that somebody would learn meditation from a critic of
> meditation simply defies common sense
Hell, no, not when they put on a Web site the
authentic instructions the TMO uses to teach TM,
which are otherwise unavailable without paying a
hunk of money. The message that sends implicitly
is that you can learn it here from the Web site
for free.
>, and wasn't anticipated by me
Sorry, don't believe you.
> nor the newsgroup participants of a decade ago. How about addressing
> that obvious inconsistency first?
Which obvious inconsistency? It's been discussed on
the newsgroup many times.
> >> >> Nope, there's no TM-Sidhi instruction on minet.org, either.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, there is.
> >>
> >> Even more hilarious, since you already went over how much "context"
> >> that I do not provide is part of TM-Sidhi instruction.
> >
> >Right. The instruction you provide is not enough
> >for people to practice the TM-Sidhis correctly, but
> >you don't bother to tell people that. You allow them
> >to think that's all there is to the program.
>
> Still looking for whatever it is on my website that you're calling
> "instruction," since I certainly didn't put anything like that there.
Well, Mike, you're blatantly lying. Anyone can visit
your Web site and see the instructions for themselves.
Peter
"Steve Ralph" <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:435a1ee6$0$6512$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> "Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
> news:djbpn...@news1.newsguy.com...
> > In article <1129812315....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> LOL! Someone rattled your cage eh? Still full of the usual bile and
> hate eh?
>
negative.
Peter
"Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:djdgg...@news4.newsguy.com...
But Mike why waste energy on individuals that only wants to manipulate their
fellow humans. Judy, John and Steve are "klippoths" or psychic vampires
nothing positive will ever come from a debate with them.
jst...@panix.com
Mike Doughney wrote:
> In article <1129989017.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> I'm looking at a newsgroup thread from December 1993 where Patrick
> >> Ryan posted the mantra list and some notes on the method with the
> >> subject line "FREE TM." No one accused him then of even suggesting
> >> that people should meditate using what he had posted!
> >
> >Actually the fact that anti-TMers make the mantras available
> >to tempt people into using them and finding them ineffective
> >because they haven't been properly instructed has been
> >pointed out here many times, and Mike knows it.
>
> "Tempt." How Judeo-Christian of you. I've sometimes thought that the
> TM movement is just an opportunistic repackaging of the wishful
> thinking of its often Jewish and Catholic participants, along with a
> heavy dose of American consumerism and an incoherent mishmash of
> Eastern mysticism. You provide yet another tiny suggestion of that
> symbiosis.
Notice how cleverly Mike avoids dealing with the
rebuttal of his point and changes the subject, trying
to turn the word "tempt" into some kind of nefarious
religious term. Except that that's such a desperate
maneuver it gives itself away.
> No, it's not temptation, it's just a bunch of gibberish on a
> webpage.
Designed to tempt (lure, induce) people to try using
the mantras and instruction to learn the practice of
TM.
The millions who learned TM from a teacher, found it
> ineffective, and told all their friends certainly didn't need my
> website to affirm their first-hand experience with the real thing!
Then why is there a need for a Web site?
> Note to Judy: you're really losing it if you think that my website is
> more important than the millions who learned TM and stopped practicing
> in less than 6 months, and told their friends that that they'd wasted
> their time and their money on something that didn't work!
Hmm, I don't believe I said it was, Mike. Are you
hearing voices in your head, or what?
(Of course, there are plenty of people who have found
that TM *does* work, but you'll never hear that from
Mike. How long were you with the movement, Mike? I
forget; 10 years or so, something like that?)
> >> This phenomenon of other people using the mantra list as some kind of
> >> instructional manual is somewhat new - and unanticipated by me or
> >> anyone else for that matter. To my knowledge, nobody has ever
> >> seriously suggested to anyone that they use the online list of mantras
> >> for meditation. You both are nuts to come back more than a decade
> >> after the fact to suggest that, solely because a few people over that
> >> decade were looking for a mantra list to actually use, that was what
> >> critics intended; critics who do not or no longer meditate and who
> >> don't recommend that others meditate!
> >
> >This is just *so* dishonest in so many ways.
> >
> >First--and anybody can verify this--Minet doesn't just
> >have a list of the mantras, it contains the complete
> >verbal instructions for practicing TM, including the
> >script the TM teacher uses for personal instruction and
> >all the checking notes. Those plus the mantra list
> >constitute a complete "instructional manual" for the
> >basic TM procedure.
>
> That's right. It contains some information - which is probably not
> complete - on how the technique is taught. The website, however, does
> not provide another trained human being to teach it to you - which is
> required to carry out what's in the script!
To carry it out *properly*, it's required. To sling
together a half-assed version, you just print out the
instructions, sit there, and try to follow them.
Again, the point is: You don't tell readers that
a trained human being is required to teach you TM
using those instructions. On its face, there's no
way they could figure that out for themselves.
Often even people who have been properly instructed
don't realize the crucial role of personal interaction.
If *you* didn't realize it, you might be less culpable.
But you've demonstrated that you do.
> Therefore, what's on the website is not meditation instruction, since
> as you and others keep insisting, that can only happen if two people
> are involved, the teacher and the student, interacting in the way the
> teacher was trained!
Right, except that you don't tell your readers that,
so they have no way of knowing it.
> >Of course, you cannot learn TM properly from such an
> >instructional manual. But Minet doesn't tell you that.
>
> Now go back and read the website, where it says in multiple places
> "Provided for historical and research purposes only."
Go back to the Web site and try to find *anywhere*
that it says you need a trained teacher to learn TM
properly.
> If the page has that on top, then people have no business trying to do
> anything with what's on that page other than reading it.
Except that you know they will, and that's what you
want them to do, disclaimer notwithstanding.
> >Disclaimer aside--and as Mike has said, many folks
> >don't take the disclaimer seriously--readers have no way
> >of knowing that TM cannot be learned by reading words on
> >a page. If Mike had not intended for people to think
> >it could be, he could easily have added a note to that
> >effect.
>
> Already did. The page has long had "provided for research and
> historical purposes only" at the top. For more than a year a much more
> explicit disclaimer has been provided, including a separate section
> where I make disparaging comments about people who try to meditate
> using what's on the page.
Noop, not a thing about interaction with a trained
teacher being a requirement to learn TM properly.
> Though given your evident inability to comprehend the English
> language when it's spoken by critics, I doubt that you'd understand
> that what is on the website serves exactly the same purpose of the
> note that you suggest. It's just not worded exactly the way you want
> it to be, and it won't be.
Right. It doesn't tell people that interaction
with a trained teacher is required to learn TM
properly. Nothing in your disclaimer serves the
purpose of letting readers know that.
> >As far as the disclaimer is concerned, by telling readers
> >*not* to use the instructions for meditation, Mike clearly
> >suggests that they *could* be used that way.
>
> You're nuts. You reveal your true complaint, which is that no
> disclaimer or notice is sufficient to satisfy you, you want all the
> information gone since you apparently view it as some kind of
> desecration of sacred teaching to have it out in public on a website.
My point is entirely logical, and you have no
response to it except ad hominem.
And your ad hominem is hallucinatory. I don't consider
TM to be "sacred" in any respect.
What your Web site does is cheat people out of the
opportunity to learn a technique that can be of great
benefit to them.
And you're right, no disclaimer would effectively prevent
this completely. But one that pointed out (a) that
personal interaction with a trained teacher was required
to learn TM properly, and (b) that part of the effectiveness
of that personal interaction depends on students being
"innocent" (Eeek! Another religious term! squeals Mike)
of the instructional process before they learn, and that
therefore even reading the instructions can interfere with
learning properly, might reduce the number of people so
cheated.
> There is of course nothing I can do about that, since the website is
> not going away anytime soon.
>
> >So the
> >disclaimer actually does the opposite of what Mike claims:
> >the cookies are in the blue jar in the cupboard above the
> >refrigerator, but they're not there for you to eat.
>
> You've gone completely off the deep end. You sound like a Christian
> wingnut complaining about the availability of condoms, that they might
> tempt someone to have sex!
Heehee. With a name like Stein?
Mike, you're floundering again.
> >And of course all the ancillary instructions that are
> >given during the three days of checking are omitted;
> >many of these are crucial for effective practice. Mike
> >doesn't tell you that either.
>
> That's because, once again, the website is not provided for meditation
> instruction! How many different ways do I have to say that?
Doesn't matter how many different ways you say that,
it doesn't address the point--as you well know.
Steve Ralph
"Peter" <pe...@myanmar.com> wrote in message
news:435a6e41$0$1776$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
judgement.
sr
>
Peter
> >
> > "jimbo" <jame...@sbcglobal.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:1129777762.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> I interested in learning how to do the tm siddhi program but the cult
> >> wants thousands of $$ for it I did find a tm ex site that goes thru the
> >> procedure but doesn't give the translations for the sutra eg happines
> >> etc anyone know anything about tm siddhi program.
> >
> Peter thinks TM practice leads to demonic possesion. I think he is some
kind
> of
> fundamentalist.
>
> sr
> >
Sure thats why I wrote
<snip>But be
> practical TM is worldwide, and for a lot of money you can have yogic
> sexflying.<snip>
A result of christian fundamentalistic thinking is to take the TM sidhi
course?. You are the fundamentlist here Steve
Vaj.
On 10/22/05 10:22 AM, in article djdhv...@news1.newsguy.com, "Mike
Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote:
> And now we have Judy Stein demonstrating one of the peculiar traits of
> the hard-core fanatic: the inability to understand change over
> time. Back when I wrote that - more than eleven years ago - the
> movement was, or at least seemed to be, functioning. Today, as far as
> I can tell, it's not; "pathetic remains of the TM organization" is
> probably a pretty accurate description of it.
>
> Either way, my little website with some gibberish they used to call
> "mantras" will hardly have any impact on the organization, since it's
> doing a great job of self-destructing on its own. But maybe you're
> helping a bit with your continuing contribution to this newsgroup,
> demonstrating to the world what kind of personality results from
> long-term practice of TM techniques, and fanatical devotion centered
> on some nostalgic memory of the organization that sold them to you.
>
>> You know, Mike, you used to be a lot better at
>> this. You've lost your touch.
>
> The only thing that's changed is that you're even more of a fanatic
> about this stuff, even more clueless about what a spectacle you're
> making of yourself, and even less aware that you're fighting for
> something that's not worth defending.
It's sad to say, but this is a very accurate description. In this case it's
helped induce what appears to be an anxiety disorder, Obsessive Compulsive
Disorder, along with several personality disorders. And this is not
restricted to just Judy. Similar symptoms are present in a number of alt.m.t
zealots.
jst...@panix.com
Says Vaj the psychiatrist. Just hilarious.
Steve Ralph
>
> "Steve Ralph" <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:4357c629$0$49801$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>>
>> "Peter" <pe...@myanmar.com> wrote in message
>> news:4357a4d4$0$1796$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>> >
>> > "jimbo" <jame...@sbcglobal.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>> > news:1129777762.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> I interested in learning how to do the tm siddhi program but the cult
>> >> wants thousands of $$ for it I did find a tm ex site that goes thru
>> >> the
>> >> procedure but doesn't give the translations for the sutra eg happines
>> >> etc anyone know anything about tm siddhi program.
>> >
>> Peter thinks TM practice leads to demonic possesion. I think he is some
> kind
>> of
>> fundamentalist.
>>
>> sr
>> >
>
> Sure thats why I wrote
>
> <snip>But be
>> practical TM is worldwide, and for a lot of money you can have yogic
>> sexflying.<snip>
You wrote this because you are a fundamentalist? Huh? Looks more
like a projection of your own hangups.
> A result of christian fundamentalistic thinking is to take the TM sidhi
> course?. You are the fundamentlist here Steve
>
Only in part - I take the 'fun' bit and throw away the 'dam' part.
sr
>
LawsonE
"Vaj." <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote in message
news:BF81044B.10AA7%vajra...@not-shunyata.org...
But not in you...
Mike Doughney
Vaj. <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote:
>
>It's sad to say, but this is a very accurate description. In this case it's
>helped induce what appears to be an anxiety disorder, Obsessive Compulsive
>Disorder, along with several personality disorders. And this is not
>restricted to just Judy. Similar symptoms are present in a number of alt.m.t
>zealots.
Well, I tend to think it's bad form to try to diagnose people's mental
impairments over the net, particularly when one is not a
professional. I prefer to borrow one of the many insults from National
Lampoon's "Dial-a-Curse:" "she has the mental agility of a small soap
dish." And she certainly must have fewer functioning brain cells left
than those in the average bar of soap. I come back after a year or two
and a few brief interactions make it clear there's not much left
upstairs with her these days. Dysfunctional would be an
understatement, certainly moreso than I ever remember.
It gets pretty clear that something's really not right with her,
watching her overreaction that has followed from one anonymous
person's rather incoherent posting that references a page full of
gibberish nonsense sounds and a few what could be called "application
notes" on my website that some people once told me were part of the
process of meditation. In response, Stein eventually ends up talking
about hard-to-reach cookies and how irresistably tempting that
gibberish must be to everyone who sees it.
In passing, I mention that the warning "Coffee is hot" is a statement
of the obvious, kind of like how when this admitted critic of
meditation providing the page says "don't meditate using this stuff"
I'm just saying what's also already obvious, and she insists that
somehow I'm talking about some mythical "caution statement" about TM
that exists only in her own head.
Then there's her insistence that the clear and unambiguous messages
all over my website telling readers that the site's not to be used for
people to learn meditation from are all completely insufficient and
unsatisfactory to her. She won't be satisfied unless I help her sell
TM to my readers by specifically saying that you have to go get piano
lessons, no, I mean, see a TM teacher and contribute some outrageous
sum of money to the payroll of some guy who wears a Burger King crown
if you want to learn TM; while my site is not about learning TM, and
as she, many others and the TM organization have always insisted, TM
can't be learned from a book nor a website.
Unanswered in her bogus "equal time" demand is exactly what kind of TM
teacher will satisfy Stein - must they have been formally requalified
after the latest purge or will the old-fashioned kind suffice, and is
a building with the Maharishi-brand certified vastu really necessary
to house the Stein-approved initiation? (Her beloved TM movement has
gummed up the works and made what was once simple very complicated!)
As is to be expected, she repeats this silly demand while dodging the
original issue that brought about my response, her libelous
nonsensical babbling, repeating the obvious falsehood that my mission
(as if I have a mission!) is to damage either the functioning
movement of a decade ago or today's nearly morbund TM organization
(and she tells me to make up my mind between those two when both are
true in their own time), followed by her insistence that I'm allegedly
damaging the movement by tempting people with a list of mantras that
are as irresistable as an unreachable jar of cookies!
This would all be funny if it wasn't both rather pitiful and malicious
at the same time, as we watch her flailing around at imagined enemies
of TM, which ironically she neither teaches nor seems to know very
much about, compared to even the average TM teacher. She is probably
best described as the ultimate TM groupie, complete with the
stereotypical groupie's obsessions, cluelessness and general lack of
self-awareness.
I think I'm about done making my point, and I probably have better
things to do with my time than get run around in such circles with the
increasingly loony Judy Stein.
jst...@panix.com
Mike Doughney wrote:
> In article <BF81044B.10AA7%vajra...@not-shunyata.org>,
> Vaj. <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote:
> >
> >It's sad to say, but this is a very accurate description. In this case it's
> >helped induce what appears to be an anxiety disorder, Obsessive Compulsive
> >Disorder, along with several personality disorders. And this is not
> >restricted to just Judy. Similar symptoms are present in a number of alt.m.t
> >zealots.
>
> Well, I tend to think it's bad form to try to diagnose people's mental
> impairments over the net, particularly when one is not a
> professional. I prefer to borrow one of the many insults from National
> Lampoon's "Dial-a-Curse:" "she has the mental agility of a small soap
> dish." And she certainly must have fewer functioning brain cells left
> than those in the average bar of soap. I come back after a year or two
> and a few brief interactions make it clear there's not much left
> upstairs with her these days. Dysfunctional would be an
> understatement, certainly moreso than I ever remember.
Translation: It was even harder this time around
for Mike to defend his dishonest arguments.
(Whether that's because I've gotten smarter or Mike
has gotten dumber, or a little of both, I leave as
an exercise for the reader.)
Mike, the rest of this is so utterly off-the-wall
nutso hysterical and such obvious bullshit I really
don't feel the need to respond to it. People are
a *lot* smarter than you give them credit for.
Anybody who's inclined to think Mike may be giving
an honest account of our exchange should go back
and read the posts that led up to it.
jst...@panix.com
Mike Doughney wrote:
> In article <BF81044B.10AA7%vajra...@not-shunyata.org>,
> Vaj. <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote:
> >
> >It's sad to say, but this is a very accurate description. In this case it's
> >helped induce what appears to be an anxiety disorder, Obsessive Compulsive
> >Disorder, along with several personality disorders. And this is not
> >restricted to just Judy. Similar symptoms are present in a number of alt.m.t
> >zealots.
>
> Well, I tend to think it's bad form to try to diagnose people's mental
> impairments over the net, particularly when one is not a
> professional.
P.S.: Mike does have a small shred of integrity here
and there, just enough to show how *completely* devoid
of same Vaj is.
Peter
"Vaj." <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:BF81044B.10AA7%vajra...@not-shunyata.org...
>
>
>
> It's sad to say, but this is a very accurate description. In this case
it's
> helped induce what appears to be an anxiety disorder, Obsessive Compulsive
> Disorder, along with several personality disorders. And this is not
> restricted to just Judy. Similar symptoms are present in a number of
alt.m.t
> zealots.
>
>
I think it is sad if you use a disease as a argument to humiliate or put
your opponents down. In that case you are the subhuman and not them.
Vaj
On 10/24/05 5:55 AM, in article
435cafac$0$1797$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk, "Peter" <pe...@myanmar.com>
wrote:
No, it's sad that these people have computers connected to the rest of the
planet via the internet and hands which know how to type...but also sadly
entertaining at the same time!
The good news: my Luvox stock made me a fortune!
Steve Ralph
> In article <BF81044B.10AA7%vajra...@not-shunyata.org>,
> Vaj. <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote:
>>
>>It's sad to say, but this is a very accurate description. In this case
>>it's
>>helped induce what appears to be an anxiety disorder, Obsessive Compulsive
>>Disorder, along with several personality disorders. And this is not
>>restricted to just Judy. Similar symptoms are present in a number of
>>alt.m.t
>>zealots.
>
> Well, I tend to think it's bad form to try to diagnose people's mental
> impairments over the net,
I agree, but I'm starting to wonder about you and your obsessions.
sr
Legion
There is a rumor that Burger King Tony is going to give the TMO's 2005
"Robert Mugabe Enlightened Humanitarian Award" to Dr. Aribert Heim for
his work with people.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj wrote:
<snip>
> The good news: my Luvox stock made me a fortune!
I'm sure the parents of the children killed at Columbine
are happy for you, Vaj.
Martin
"The TM technique was a creation of, and the premiere product of, the
movement; the movement is a group of people who are the product of
long-term practice of the TM technique and consumption of the
movement's products."
In all fairness, this isn't quite accurate (although it is
substantially true). When the only person in the world who knew about
TM was Br. Mahesh, he was also the "movement to be". As he continued to
change his mind about what would work, his movement continuted to pour
out that change.
"If you want to know what the benefits of TM practice are, just look to
the only organization on earth that is composed only of people who
practice it."
This applies to the RC church and to Scientologists and to Jehovah's
Witnesses, the Republican Party and so on ... yet, your point is, if I
understand correctly: look at the TM organization and judge for
yourself. -- So, who could possibly argue!
Looking at a.m.t.'s excuses for TM "supporters" I am constantly turned
off any interest in TM other than something made laughable by its own
founder and now supported by people who rely upon accusations without
backup. Or who sport Burger King hats and, like the naked emperor,
think such attire smashing! TM and a.m.t. are both hideously laughable,
profoundly sick jokes on the unsuspecting and on themselves, on their
founder and on his organization; yet, when one gets past the bile, the
vitreol and the lack of discernment that fuels the TM "supporters",
it's a playground for the foolish and a workshop for those who wish to
hone their skills in trying to argue with belief. Both, of course,
fight a totally worthless and useless battle, yet for those for whom
a.m.t. has become a workshop for learning about religious zealotism, it
still has a modicum of value.
For those who help others understand the negativity of and viscous
nature of cult involvement, it offers just a little more than a modicum
of value.
I much admire your Website. Obviously, it's where miscreants who
pretend to support this nonesense called TM yet who never took the
teacher training course, much less completed the checker's course, get
their information!
Thank you for providing that information. Being a long term teacher of
TM as well as having spent several years as one of Br. Mahesh's
assistants (and as one who listened more than spoke), I can attest to
the overall accuracy of the content you provide. The advanced
techniques you list differ from the ones Br. Mahesh gave me, but that
only demonstrates that he didn't much bother with any other formula
than the 'as easily as' thing. What he taught others to teach he did
not necessarily consider his own boundaries.
I must confess that I actually did learn something worthwhile from
learning TM: I learned to return to the object of meditation as
effortlessly as I was experiencing thought at that time.
I cannot speak for others, but in the context of TM, this formula
accomplished little; in other forms of meditation, however, I have
found it remarkably useful.
Looking back, the years I practised TM were more or less years sealed
like insects in amber. But, after I quit TM (mostly in disgust over the
supposed sidhi program), I turned to zazen and within two years
experienced profound changes.
That, is just speaking for me, of course. I have carried on long and
illuminating conversations with pro-TM'ers as well as those who have
found it anywhere from disappointing to profoundly stupid. Those who
have talked in detail about their experiences of awakening or insight
have almost exclusively come, however, from the non- or post-TM
practitioners. It's anecdotal and probably less than worthwhile, but
just for whatever it's worth, there it is.
The non- and post-TM practitioners who have gone on to practise other
forms of meditation have been able to be articulate about what has
changed for them while only a very, very small percentage of the
practising TM'ers have been able to say anything more substantial than
that they are sure they feel better.
Thanks again for your Website.
M
Mike Doughney
>> impairments over the net, particularly when one is not a
>> professional.
>
>P.S.: Mike does have a small shred of integrity here
>and there, just enough to show how *completely* devoid
>of same Vaj is.
Well, frankly, it's a lot more fun to say that Judy has the mental
agility of a small soapdish than to say that she has a bunch of mental
disorders. If she really has to follow up and insist that my comparing
her to a small soapdish means I have a small shred of
integrity... maybe she just doesn't know when the hell to shut up!
Mike Doughney
Steve Ralph <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
>news:djhkp...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> impairments over the net,
>
>I agree, but I'm starting to wonder about you and your obsessions.
And those "obsessions" would be... what?
Considering I went well over a year posting less than a half-dozen
times on this here newsgroup - a fraction of a percent of the activity
of a few individuals here - certainly my posting activity wouldn't be
evidence of "obsession."
Having a website that I pretty much ignore and maybe change a word or
two on every few years or so, and that costs me nothing, doesn't
provide that evidence either.
Though the die-hard dead-end defenders of TM here desperately want to
believe that the critics of the TM program - or even those who just
don't think TM is worth the time, effort or money - are somehow
defective in some way, such allegations are almost always
unsupportable. As would any allegation associating me with some kind
of obsessive behavior. Unless you were planning on following Judy's
lead and posting some obviously false whopper about me.
jimbo
the MINetwork I found other and better things. I rarely do meditation
hardly ever but when I stumbled upon this site with TM siddhi I
thought HERE it is.HERE is the information LETS experiment and see
what all the hoopla is all about. Its not something that I would do
often anyway I think this is nothing but waste of time I think I'll
stick with NLP and other advances in personal development This is such
a waste of my time and a waste of your time also. This is the first
time I spent so much time on a website writing this. Its a waste of my
time to look for translations. If someone were to give them to me (
(complete proper instructions) great I'd experiment otherwise I could
be doing something much more productive with my time
jimbo
the MINetwork I found other and better things. I rarely do meditation
I
thought HERE it is.HERE is the information LETS experiment and see
what all the hoopla is all about. Its not something that I would do
often anyway I think this is nothing but waste of time I think I'll
stick with NLP and other advances in personal development This is such
time I spent so much time on a website writing this. Its a waste of my
time to look for translations. If someone were to give them to me
jst...@panix.com
Mike Doughney wrote:
> Though the die-hard dead-end defenders of TM here desperately want to
> believe that the critics of the TM program - or even those who just
> don't think TM is worth the time, effort or money - are somehow
> defective in some way, such allegations are almost always
> unsupportable. As would any allegation associating me with some kind
> of obsessive behavior. Unless you were planning on following Judy's
> lead and posting some obviously false whopper about me.
Nobody who followed *my* lead would be posting an
obviously false whopper, or any degree of whopper,
for that matter, since I never post whoppers, about
Mike or anybody else.
To claim I did is the whopper.
will...@yahoo.com
> Your website isn't even academic. It's superficial, biased,
> and damaging to the legitimacy of TM - which you apparently
> never came to appreciate.
>
So, why in the fuk did you send us there, you hypocrite!
From: John Manning
Subject: Maharishi's mantras
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2002-07-30 20:27:15 PST
The following includes what I was taught. It also includes other
information which I was not given by Maharishi or in advanced
instruction, but which follows the context within which I received what
I got. The source is:
http://minet.org/mantras-alt.html
From: John Manning
Subject: Current Shankaracharya Condemns MMY
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-10-05 17:35:25 PST
After the murder of his Master, the next in line was Shantinand. He
said Mahesh immediately had him moved into the ashram to assume
authority.
Reference: www.trancenet.org
John Manning
From: John Manning
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Subject: MMY's "Suckers"
Date: Tues, Oct 23 2001 11:39 am
TM ORG INSTRUCTIONS: "Insert Maharishi Mahesh Yogi shop-vac into your
wallet. Do not read the following." - - -
SOURCE: http://www.unstress4less.org/Maharishi_Effect-mdefect.htm
LawsonE
"Vaj" <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote in message
news:BF7E58FD.537%vajra...@not-shunyata.org...
>
>
>
> On 10/20/05 10:07 AM, in article
> 4357a4d4$0$1796$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk, "Peter" <pe...@myanmar.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But be aware that some TM ers claimed that they have becomed ill
>> from this program, My concern is more of a spiritual kind, since many
>> have
>> shown demonic tendencies, hence the demonic trio.
>
> Indeed. Many tend to develop pranic diseases with long term practice of
> the
> TM-Sidhi program. One of Mahesh's closest disciples, who has now left "the
> movement" has said that young children who were very perceptive would
> perceive Mahesh as a demon.
Really? But his own guru appeared to be willing to accept him answering
personal mail on his behalf...
The Shurangama sutra actually states what the
> signs are of people possessed by demons from heaven dimensions and it's
> not
> uncommon to see these signs in long-term TM practitioners who are so proud
> to tell you about their own enlightenment. It's really quite disturbing to
> witness.
>
Peter
"LawsonE" <nos...@nospam.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:aHIff.551$dv.316@fed1read02...
>
> "Vaj" <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote in message
> news:BF7E58FD.537%vajra...@not-shunyata.org...
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/20/05 10:07 AM, in article
> > 4357a4d4$0$1796$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk, "Peter"
<pe...@myanmar.com>
> > wrote:
>. One of Mahesh's closest disciples, who has now left "the
> > movement" has said that young children who were very perceptive would
> > perceive Mahesh as a demon.
>
> Really? But his own guru appeared to be willing to accept him answering
> personal mail on his behalf...
>
dont care what spiritual status the toiletcleaner has, you just want the
toilet cleaned.
LawsonE
"Martin" <m-ad...@rogers.com> wrote in message
[...]
> Or who sport Burger King hats and, like the naked emperor,
> think such attire smashing!
Why do you think that King Tony and the Rajahs (GREAT name for a band, DIBS
DIBS) think their attire is smashing?
LawsonE
"jimbo" <jame...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1130293286.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
JEeze dude. The entire practice of the TM-sidhis comes from the Yoga Sutras
of Patanjali. There are translations, transliterations with original
Sanskrit, pronounciation guides, etc., all over the net. Why don't you just
google yourself up an answer to your question rather than ask people who
either won't answer you because they promised they wouldn't talk about it or
who don't believe in the stuff any more and don't practice what you're
asking about anyway?
LawsonE
Heh. Yeah, I guess that's why toilet cleaners at MUM all practice TM. I
guess if you're the Shankaracharya, you can't afford to hire competent help
and must accept whoever is willing to clean the shit as a volunteer service
and demonstration of devotion, rather than hire PROFESSIONAL toilet cleaners
who would be far superior in their spiritual advancement just because, well,
they're willing to do it for money...
And the above applies even more when it comes to answering the personal mail
of one of the most famous Indian saints of the 20th Century, obviously...
[the above is sarcasm, if you were wondering...]
LawsonE
But comparing her brain to a soapdish isn't the same as implying that she's
mentally ill...
There's insults and then there's insults.