--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > [...] > > > > > You're complaining about oral traditions and their > preservation > > > and > > > > > about the lousy job of this that the TMO has done. > > > > > > > > &&&&&&&& > > > > > > > > That interpretation is justified neither by what I wrote nor by > > > what I intended. > > > > > > > > First, I'm not discussing "oral traditions"; you have inserted > that > > > topic into the string on > > > > your own accord. > > > > > > What do YOU mean by "purity of the teaching," if not the oral > > > tradition of teaching TM? > > > > %%%%%%%% > > > > At the risk of being redundant, I will once again attempt to point > out that the topic of "oral > > traditions" was introduced by you, not by me. I was not > discussing "oral traditions", but > > rather the "purity of the teaching" in the TMO. These topics are > not identical unless one > > defines them to be at the outset and proceeds on that basis. As I > have said in other posts, > > in my opinion there is more involved in the purity of the teaching > than the specific > > content, part of which by the way is strictly oral tradition, and > part of which is not. > > Well, when *I* started TM, "purity of the teaching" was understood by > me (and by most other people, I'll bet) to refer to the specifics of > teaching TM, NOT some extra stuff added later on.
======== Purity of the teaching, in the narrow sense, refers to the content and methods of instruction, which are valued, not so much for their own sake, as for the effects they produce, the most important of which would probably be effortless transcending. However, I doubt if most people would object if we also included the purity of the intent of the initiator as part of the purity of the teaching. Unless, of course, you object and would like to state your case. Thus far, I don't see that I've added anything to the common understanding of "purity of the teaching", and I am confident that you are unable to identify any other element that I have added, despite your apparent assertion that I have done so. ======== > If you're going off on tangets by defining "purity of the teaching" > by some non-standard term that YOU never defined at the start of this > discussion, but simply assumed that everyone else had to agree with, > well, bully for you, but its not how to conduct a discussion. ======== If you truly feel qualified to give lessons on how to conduct a discussion, please indicate how my understanding of the concept is nonstandard, as you assert ========. > > Terms that are undefined at the start are assumed to be the most > common definition, not someone's ad hoc definition that he/she has > never defined. ======== As a general statement, I agree with that. I do not agree, however, with your other assertions regarding my definitions of "purity of the teaching". It was you, on the other hand, who incorrectly assumed that "purity of the teaching" and "preservation of oral traditions" were equivalent terms, thereby injecting an extraneous element into the discussion. 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/
