--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > > > Personally, I feel that the "purity of the teaching" as I have > > > > understood it has already been lost. There is very little there > > > > left preserving, and that which is worthy of preserving can > > > > best be saved outside the context of the organization. > > > > > > So which branch of Christianity has done the best at preserving > > > the oral tradition? > > > > @@@@@@@@ > > > > I am not discussing Christianity here, so I will not bother > > responding to this question. > > Whoa, Lawson is setting up a point, which you seem to > have missed entirely. Take another look: > > > > The TMO has been set up specifically to preserve its oral > > > tradition. That is NOT the case for ANY major branch of the > > > Christian religion, and it shows, IMHO. > > > > > > Whether or not the TMO approach will work for any length of time > > > remains to be seen. What we CAN be sure of is that most, if not > > > all, other approaches have not seemed to work. > > > > > > Look at Benson's Relaxation Response, based on numerous > > > interviews with TMers. Look at Chopra's own meditation technique, > > > and how he presents it to people. We can see the results of > > > the telephone effect immediately (within a generation of > > > second-handness). > > > > > > Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's techniques, useful or not, aren't deemed > > > central to his organization, as far as I can tell, because his > > > charitable works are the only pretty much the only thing > > > discussed here. > > > > @@@@@@@@ > > > > Your penchant for straw man arguments could take up a lot of band > > width at this rate. > > No, he's making a good argument. Go back and look > at it again. > > > > MMY has always been consistent in his representation of what he > > > believes is important, and I find it amusing that people > > > criticize him for building an organization specifically > > > designed to preserve that which he deems most important. > > > > @@@@@@@@ > > > > Surely you jest! Maharishi has changed his game plan more times > > than I can recall, as has been observed time and again in this > > forum. At the most obvious level, what has become of the priority > > to have large numbers of ordinary people meditating, or large > > numbers of Sidhas flying together, etc, etc.? > > You're still missing the point. Lawson isn't talking > about strategies, he's talking about the need MMY > perceives to preserve the purity of oral instruction > in the techniques. > > (MMY's priorities in terms of strategies have changed > as various strategies have turned out to be or not > to be effective. He hasn't ever been able to achieve > the level of participation necessary to make the two > strategies you mention work, so he keeps trying > alternate strategies to create the same effect.)
&&&&&&&& I believe that in exchanges like this, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and, frankly, I suspect I gave Lawson a much more careful reading than he gave me. However, to address your assertion that I missed his point: No, I got the point and found it not to be relevant. It is understandable that you or any other person could reach a different conclusion, but I'm sticking with what I delivered in response. There is no assumed consensus in this forum about the nature and history of Christianity. While most of us probably accept the proposition that the "purity of the teaching" has gone out of that religion (or collection of religions, to be more accurate), it seems to be the case that people continue to find a personal relationship with Christ in all of its branches. Even a blind pig can stumble over an acorn from time to time, as they say. On the other hand, I have seen arguments here to the effect that the Roman Catholic Church reperesents the purity of the teaching for Christianity, attempting to make the analogy between the RCC and the TMO. While I got the general drift of his argument about the difference between historical Christianity and TMO, and his theoretical projection of some presumed difference that would give the TMO a putative "survival" advantage, I simply believe the whole line of reasoning is simply too shallow to be taken seriously, and therefore amounted to a functional straw man argument. All cults and organizations have elements in common. Nothing new under the sun, as they say. This always obvious in retrospect, but usually controversial only in the present. In the present, there is some controversy about the necessity of instituting a specific range of punishments (behavior modifications, if you prefer) whose ostensible purpose is "to preserve the purity of oral instruction in the techniques". I, and others, have argued that these measures have been demonstrably counterproductive. I, and others, have further argued that, from our point of view, the purity of the teaching has ALREADY been lostby the organization itself. Therefore it is a moot point whether the argument is about strategies or something else. I know many teachers who teach out of the goodness of their hearts, refusing no one because of monetary issues, and administering the knowledge with faithful diligence to the tradition of masters, in the manner in which they themselves were instructed. Technically, they are outside the organization, yet I believe they are maintaining the purity of the teaching, whereas many who still work within the organization have compromised it. Many TMers still accept the TM catechism's thesis that the TM technique as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is the only hope for mankind. To believe that, of course, is to be necessarily desperate. It is this desperation that gives rise to immoderate, irrational behavior. It seems probable to me that the TMO has shot its wad, historically speaking, and there's nothing left for its future but a rash of historical publications and footnotes. Is this a sad outcome? Why should anyone be sad that something came and went, the way of all things? On the other hand, I DO think it's sad to try and perpetuate a thing beyond its time, like that poor lady in Florida. Better to let it go, gracefully, and look for satwa in the here and now. L B S To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
