--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > shempmcgurk wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > >> shempmcgurk wrote: > >> > >>> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> shempmcgurk wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> > >>>>> > > wrote: > > > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> boo_lives wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> --- In [email protected], sgrayatlarge > >>>>>>> > > <no_reply@> > > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> www.intentblog.com > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Deepak posts a blog usually two times a week. In the past > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> years > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> that > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> I have read and commented on Intent, not once did Deepak > >>>>>>>> > > give > > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> any > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> credit or even mention MMY's name. Plenty of what he says > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> comes > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> right > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> out of movement dogma; here is more on Intent, take a look, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> make > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> comments, most adore Deepak, however, recently I was banned > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> for > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> being > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> a bit too critical of Chopra. He gets very political and > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> tends > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> to > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> make unquestioning statements without examples... his > >>>>>>>> > > gospel. > > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> His > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> previous posts are all listed, have fun! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> All of mov't dogma comes out of certain sects of indian > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> philosophy, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> but MMY-TMO promote it as cognized copyrighted wisdom > >>>>>>> > > from "the > > > >>>>>>> greatest sage to have ever walked the earth" (the way MMY is > >>>>>>> > > now > > > >>>>>>> referred to on their global broadcasts). MMY took loads of > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> help > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> from > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> the early leaders of the movt in the west who were essential > >>>>>>> > > to > > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> making > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> TM accessible and most of them were dumped unceremoniously. > >>>>>>> > > The > > > >>>>>>> MMY-Deepak partnership was beneficial to both, and Deepak is > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> under no > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> obligation to credit MMY every time he says something about > >>>>>>> consciousness, in fact as I understand it the TMO lawyers get > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> upset if > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Deepak does mention the mov't in any way. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> So true and you see what happens if you tell some of the folks > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> here > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> that > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> the TM methods are nothing new. I actually enjoyed looking up > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> stuff > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> back in the 70's when I was a teacher to confirm I was > >>>>>> > > teaching > > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> some > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> stuff that was somewhat traditional (outside on the no OM > >>>>>> > > thing > > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> and > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> the > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> single use of bij mantras). Of course I never mentioned that > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> outside > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> of a circle of teacher friends that did the same thing often > >>>>>> recommending certain books. Even if I pointed to page 239- > >>>>>> > > 240 > > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> in "Mind > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Mysteries" which was published by Swami Sivananda way before > >>>>>> > > MMY > > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> even > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> joined the Shankaracharya these people would say it is not the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> same > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> thing as TM though in concept it certainly is. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Great! > >>>>> > >>>>> Could you please reproduce the pertinent parts of pp 239-240 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> right > >>> > >>> > >>>>> here for us to look at? > >>>>> > >>>>> I thank you in advance for the trouble and attention you will > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> take to > >>> > >>> > >>>>> do this task... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Click on Meditation in the Index: > >>>> http://www.dlshq.org/download/mind.htm > >>>> > >>>> You can just save the page off too and they did and probably > >>>> > > still > > > >>>> > >>>> > >>> do > >>> > >>> > >>>> somewhere have it in a zip file. I thought you already had the > >>>> > >>>> > >>> file as > >>> > >>> > >>>> I've mentioned the book and the link too it here a number of > >>>> > > times. > > > >>>> > >>>> > >>> As you'r probably already aware, I beat you to it and my link > >>> > > goes > > > >>> directly to pages 239-240 you referred to. > >>> > >>> And, as anyone can see, Sivananda's description on pp 239-240 > >>> > > bear no > > > >>> resemblance whatsoever to the TM Technique. > >>> > >> And I totally predicted a TB'er drunk on the kool-aid would say > >> > > that. I > > > >> SAID YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT CONCEPTUALLY, IDIOT! > >> > >> > > > > > > Well, if you want to look at it "conceptually", then the Christian > > Catechism resembles TM. > > > > Conceptually is broad enough that it could mean anything. And you > > only threw in the whole conceptual thing in that last post because > > you needed an out for your initial bullshit statement. > BTW, I don't recall that the TMO ever published for the public anything > that described in detail the method of learning meditation or even > checking. The only thing is MMY giving a description *conceptually.* > But anyway anyone who has stepped outside of the movement knows that > there is nothing unique about the way the mantra is given and it is old > as time itself.
The "uniqueness" that was referred to here was the effortless and ease of the TM Technique. This WAS discussed conceptually by the TMO and MMY and, indeed, what was emphasized from Step One of the 7-Step Program. As anyone knows who reads my posts here on FFL, I have alot of complaints about MMY and the TMO. But this is the one thing that should not and cannot be taken away from the man: he promoted and made available to the world a technique to obtain enlightenment that was easy and effortless to do. And although I can't "prove" it (this can only be something that one can declare subjectively), it is this effortlessness that makes it the most effective self-development technique around. This concept of effortlessness, simplicity, and universal application is an incredible accomplishment and despite all the screw-ups since the introduction of the flying technique (which, IMHO, signalled the beginning of the descent of the Movement), this puts MMY head and shoulders above any spiritual master of the past 5,000 years. Let's not take THAT away from him...
