--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > snip > > > > > > > > The confusion arises when the issue isn't fully > > > > understood. I don't think there's any way it can > > > > possibly be explained well enough in an intro > > > > lecture for people to be able to make a fully > > > > informed choice, and they likely won't even be > > > > aware of it. > > > > > > The Buddhists and other more honestly Hindu groups > > > seem to do an OK job of this disclosure. > > > > I don't think it's comparable, though. The Hindu > > groups don't think of themselves as not conflicting > > with other religions, and Buddhists don't have gods. > > Many Hindus believe that all other religions are > contained within Hinduism. Plenty of Indians > spiritual masters have claimed this about > Christianity including Yogananda and his predecessor > in the West Swami Vivekananda.
I don't think they're comparable. > And plenty of versions of Buddhism does include Gods. > The most common form in Thailand, Theravada Buddhism > has all sorts of beings to propitiate. But they are > not evangelical. And Thailand isn't the West. <snip> > > I don't think what you find on the Internet amounts > > to a comprehensive understanding. > > If someone can't form an educated opinion of the > different sides of this issue from the material that > has been generated on this site and ALT TM they are > pretty thick. Biases can be noted and a person can > find out that the brochure version of the TM teaching > is not the whole story. Alt.m.t and FFL are about the *last* places I'd recommend for a clear and comprehensive understanding. <snip> > But you have been an enthusiastic advocate of your > position and that is all on record so I don't know > why you don't feel more positively towards the work > we have all done to make our view known. On FFL we all, or almost all, have a common basis of understanding, and that was largely true on alt.m.t as well. That's the big missing piece, experience of the practice and also of the instruction. <snip> > > More to the point, what difference does it make to the > > 2x20 practitioner what MMY's religious practices were > > as long as he wasn't teaching them? > > I think we disagree about the religious nature of > japa meditation using TM mantras. I don't even think TM can be called japa. Or if TM is japa, then what's currently taught as japa isn't japa. That aside, you and I have very different understandings of the nature of religion and the nature of TM. And you didn't answer my question. <snip> > > Seems to me the folks who could benefit most from TM > > are the ones who either wouldn't want to go to the > > trouble of "personalizing" it or would consider doing > > so anathema. > > I really haven't found one of the benifits of TM > is making someone more open minded have you? I've seen it, but that's not the point. > But believing that you might know what is best for > a person and withholding full disclosure about the > TM practice seem to be far apart on the ethics spectrum. I don't think that's some kind of absolute. I think it's all much more complicated than that. I also think this "ethics of full disclosure" issue is often more something to bash MMY with than it is a concern for the sensibilities of religionists. > It is easier for you to divorce your practice with > its belief context without having taken TTC. Of course it is. But we're not talking about people who become teachers, we're talking about people who learn the technique and go off and practice it on their own.
