--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > authfriend wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > >> authfriend wrote: > >> > >>> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: <snip> > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>> Straw man. Nobody suggested there was anything > >>> unique about how the mantra is given. > >>> > >> Didn't follow the thread did you? > > > > I've read every post in the thread. Nowhere did > > Shemp say there was anything unique about how > > the mantra is given. > > > > Anybody can say "conceptually" that a method is > > easy or even effortless. Where the rubber meets > > the road is whether the instructions for practice > > actually lead to effortlessness when they're > > implemented. So the whole "conceptually" > > business is a red herring. What makes the TM > > technique unique is not the concept, but how the > > concept is implemented.
> Oh come now. You can waste all the time you want on trying to > disprove me mainly because you don't like me like you don't like > many other folks on this group (and I'm sure you will follow up > trying to disclaim it). There are a few folks on this forum I dislike, but I've never included you among them. You're a bit of a blowhard, but you seem pretty harmless. I don't try to disprove things folks say because I dislike them. I do it when I think they're mistaken, whether I like them or not (and support them when I think they're right, whether I like them or not). > That doesn't make you any better a person. You've never taught > meditation so no first hand experience to speak of. I have firsthand experience *being taught* TM, and I took checker training, which comprises all the personal instruction except the puja and giving the mantra. I have taught > meditation so have that first hand experience. I already said these > descriptions are not exactly the same thing but they are close enough. > You're just like a old boss I once had who would find some little > obscure point and then pick on it regardless of how well one did the job > just because he was a control freak. Good lord. "Some little obscure point"? I quoted a whole batch of of stuff from Sivananda's Web site and from one of his books that *completely* contradicts your claims. > Anyway the point was as others here (who you probably don't like > either) have pointed out that Maharishi didn't invent this stuff. > It is very traditional. Depends on what you're identifying as "this stuff." And so there was no need for Chopra to give any credit to > Maharishi for a method that has been traditional for centuries > anyway. That's not a position I took, Bhairitu. You haven't been paying attention. And you sure haven't even attempted to address any of the points I made, contenting yourself with ad hominem instead.
