So you are proffering Shaiva revisionism like a starry-eyed western convert such as Alain Danielou. It must give you comfort and validation as a self-initiated guru.
You hold and maintain a set of religious and cultural prejudices that make you a mirror of the hard-line tmo cadre. Watching you try and smack down a naïve pandit here on ffl just demonstrates that you are bereft of anything but your self. Even Barry admits he is only displaying his opinions. Amazing how much more honest he is than you. But then again, you desperately need to be here offering your grand diagnosis and self-referencing value scale to keep us from hurting ourselves. After Gautama Shakyamuni and Padma Totrengtsal we now have Vajraduta, the third "grand physician", who will surely keep us from deluding ourselves. Maybe we should all supplicate you for your obvious sympathy and above all for not giving us anal fistulas with your fierce mantras. --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On May 29, 2009, at 2:22 AM, cardemaister wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: > >> > >> > >> On May 28, 2009, at 6:21 PM, BillyG. wrote: > >> > >>> --- In [email protected], bob_brigante <no_reply@> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> http://snipurl.com/iyubq > >>>> [adventuresintranscendentalmeditation_blogspot_com] > >>> > >>> > >>> I think Maharishi has already defined TM as "the greatest blessing" > >>> of the *eternal Religion* represented by the Vedas. > >>> > >>> "It would be exact to say that all the religions from times > >>> immemorial are just different branches of the main trunk of the > >>> *eternal religion* represented by the Vedas". page four > >>> > >>> "This is the greatest blessing of the Vedas, this system of > >>> meditation is the greatest blessing of the Vedas". page five > >> > >> > >> That's pretty funny considering TM is tantric. > >> > >> Oh well. It sounded impressive! > >> > > > > Isn't the basic principle of TM introduced by RSi Diirghatamas > > in Rgveda I 164, 39 and 45? > > > > R^i\`co a\`kShare\' para\`me vyoma\`n yasmi\'n de\`vaa adhi\` vishve > > \' niShe\`duH |\\ > > yas tan na veda\` kim R^i\`caa ka\'riShyati\` ya it tad vi\`dus > > ta i\`me sam aa\'sate || \EN{1}{164}{39} \\ > > > > ---------------------- > > > > ca\`tvaari\` vaak pari\'mitaa pa\`daani\` taani\' vidur braahma > > \`Naa ye ma\'nii\`ShiNaH\' |\\ > > *** guhaa\` triiNi\` nihi\'taa\` ne~Nga\'yanti *** tu\`riiyaM\' > > vaa\`co ma\'nu\`Shyaa vadanti || \EN{1}{164}{45} \\ > > > > > > ne~Nga\'yanti -> na + in.gayanti (ing-gayanti) > > > Do you believe the goal of TM is to get you into the highest heaven > where the Devas lie? Do you actually believe this idea of a highest > heaven is the same as the unified field? > > Personally, I find that a bit of a stretch. > > I do believe devout Brahmins would try to say that it was some > relation to meditation, but to me, that's really just post hoc > revisionism. It sounds more to me like an Indian version of "Moses > got the Ten Commandments from the burning bush on Mount Sinai". > > What we're more likely seeing IMO is an attempt by the Brahmin > overlords to connect tantric ideas to their scriptures through tricks > of exegesis. >
