--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > I think that what may be going on is that a number > > > of people who paid their dues in the TM movement > > > don't realize how heavily they have been influenced > > > by Patanjali and his hangups. He may have *been* > > > enlightened. But he was also a Class A religious > > > fanatic. Given the politics of his day, he lobbied > > > heavily to "prove" Hinduism superior to any other > > > "competing" religions, and also to "prove" his > > > particular sect of it superior to all others. He > > > traveled around challenging others to verbal "duels" > > > to "prove" such things. > > > > Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not > > Patanjali. > > Indeed I did. Thank you for the correction. > > > In any case, a penchant for debate about the > > validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies > > labeling Shankara as a "religious fanatic." > > You say tomato, I say tomato...
You say tomato, I say kiwi fruit. As I pointed out, given the culture of Shankara's day, it's like calling candidates for public office in the West "political fanatics" because they're constantly debating about policy. Makes no sense, in other words.
