--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > TM is a delicate practice of innocence. If doubt festers about one's > > practice, a bottomless pit of questions escalates anger and destroys > > innocence. > > Questions lead to anger? Not for me, it leads to answers or at least the joy > of delineating the areas I am lacking knowledge. > > As far as the need for innocence in TM goes, I might be a poster child for > being one of the least innocent people here concerning the practice, but in > my experience, my TM practice is the same as it ever was when I was > "innocent" about the whole thing. I believe that this is another area of > Maharishi where he was being self-serving by trying to instill a phobia about > questioning he authority. It is a pretty common tactic among group leaders > to shut people up. > > < A question masks an irritation, an itch you just can't scratch.> > > I love you like a sista Raunchy but this is blatant BS! Where did you get > such a negitive view of being curious? (Oh, yeah I know!) > > < Some folks are just naturally itchier than others are. They can't help it. > I wonder if irritable folks> > > Whoa there Nelly! Equating people who have questions with being "irritable" > is slippery at best and a bit sinister at worst. Think about the > implications of this equation. It is a blatant thought stopper and unworthy > of your otherwise lively curious mind. > > <could just get past those pesky questions long enough to do enough TM > regularly, they just might be a little less crabby about TM. Maybe not, it > didn't seem to work out that way for Edg.> > > The intellectual questions about Maharishi's teaching that I have have > nothing to do with the pejorative "crabby." So no practice is needed to > reduce crabbiness. ( I know you were directing this towards Edg who could be > characterized as being crabby in some post in general, but I am defending him > in the specific case of his questions about Maharishi's teaching which have > their own intellectual legitimacy outside any mood.) >
I don't have any problem with intellectual curiosity. Yours is certainly well developed and I appreciate you for that. But did you ever have to deal with a child refusing to let go of, "But WHY Mommy?" Finally Mommy says, "Well, just because I said so." Mommy absorbed the child's escalating irritation instead of acknowledging the reason for badgering. "What's bothering you, honey?" It's usually diaper itch...every time. > > Maharishi did everything he could to answer questions for the sake of > > innocent practice. > > Actually he did a lot to avoid questions for the sake of "innocent practice." > Another phrase for innocent might be "poorly informed." > > < For a few, no matter what he said, it wasn't going to be good enough.> > > > Considering the fact that only a few ever continued his practice beyond their > first year you may want to rephrase that "No matter how much he said, it was > only good enough for a few." > > > I'm sure you get my larger point here Raunchy. I am wary of people who set > up conditions to limit my legitimate desire to ask questions and know more > about any aspect of my life. You might be interested in the difference > between first degree and second degree naivete. I'm a fan of the latter. > > > > <It's interesting that as long as Barry blithely meditated for > "self-discovery"...no problem...TM was just fine by him. Too bad, he became > a teacher and he let cognitive dissonance bamboozled his innocence. Although > I'm sure he probably sees it as a victory over evil. > > > > Marooned on an island and never knowing anything about TM except innocent > > practice, would Barry still practice TM or would he have found a way to > > talk himself out of it, hankering to attend church regularly and ask God's > > forgiveness him for practicing Hinduism? I guess you just can't do much > > about karma. Peace, Brother Barry. > > >
