Actually, you seem to care a lot about it. If you didn't, why would you make so many posts, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, attacking MMY and the TMO? If you are so bored with it, why do you keep writing about it? Why are you still so angry about MMY and the TMO, 30 years after you claim to have left the movement?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall <thomas.pall@> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > I have a collection of personal, insider notes from a Purusha as > > > to what "knowledge" was being digested at various times. You can > > > see from them who M. was meeting with and later what programs > > > were being fabricated from those meetings. He basically would > > > meet with various experts in various fields and use the > > > information that fit his system and discard those that didn't. > > > It did not matter if this distorted these teachings, he was > > > supposedly restoring the purity of the tradition... > > > > > > A great example of how course and knowledge material would be > > > created was the 700-page source material for the Age of > > > Enlightenment courses and techniques. It was a huge pile of > > > photocopies from common Sanskrit translations in those daze, a > > > lot on the number 7 and how creation inherently was based on > > > different permutations of 7. A lot of Arthur Avalon. Descriptions > > > of the various heavens and hells, chakra systems, etc. > > > > > > All those late night lectures came from students reading him this > > > stuff AFAICT. > > > > It's up to each of us to decide if Maharishi had special knowledge > > of creation from his alleged omniscience which allowed him to go > > through this process "restoring the purity of the tradition". > > Maharishi was acting on whims, as he always did. Whether or not > > what he taught was perfect, entirely guided by the three goons, > > is at question here, IMO. What Maharishi did distorted the > > teachings if the interpretation of the teachings had gotten off > > the path. So now we're back to one of the seminal arguments > > on FFL: was Maharishi acting in an undistorted way from the > > home of all the laws of Nature or wasn't he? > > With all due respect, you're back to one of the > BORING arguments on FFL. > > Who, after all, really cares, except for a few > people still trying to justify their investment > of time, money, and belief for all those years? > Maharishi's dead, and it looks as if his movement > will be as well in a few years, maybe sooner. No > one else on the planet gives a shit. >
