--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I believe Vaj's contributions here are more sincere than that. > > > If you accept the premise that there really IS a tradition of > > > knowledge of yoga, and if you believe that Maharishi has > > > corrupted it, then it all makes sense why Vaj would care. It > > > comes from taking the knowledge very seriously. > > > > Being sincere about one's own tradition is one thing; > > being intellectually honest in comparing it to another > > tradition is something else again. > > I think our perception of this has something to do with what > motives we ascribe to him. Deliberate dishonesty requires > the introduction of a dark motive, doesn't it? I'm not sure > I have evidence for that but let's see if you do. But on the > outset I accept your distinction as valuable if it applies.
Intellectual dishonesty is not necessarily always a deliberate attempt to deceive. It can be something one falls into without realizing it in an attempt to establish the validity of a strongly held point of view or belief, either because the case for its validity isn't really all that good, or simply because one is having trouble figuring out how to make that case with intellectual honesty, so one takes unwarranted shortcuts. That being said, as far as Vaj is concerned there is plenty of evidence that he has not always been *factually* honest, i.e., that he has engaged in deliberate deception. I don't know if you want to get into history to the extent necessary to justify that assertion. But I wouldn't rule out "dark motives" on his part. In some cases it may simply be a matter of ego-investment in being "right" rather than an intention to malign with malice aforethought. I'm not at all sure that's true of all cases, though. Anyway: > > Two points: > > > > One, Vaj never addresses the question of whether MMY > > "corrupted" the tradition, or whether he *reformed* > > it after it had been corrupted by others. There's a > > good case to be made for the latter, but Vaj won't > > even acknowledge it, let alone debate it. > > I'm pretty sure we have heard his opinion on this. He > believes that Maharishi corrupted it and that TMers are > incorrect to believe that he reformed it He won't acknowledge that there's a good case to be made for the "reformed" claim. He does acknowledge such a claim is made. So, yes, we know his opinion, but he won't engage in debate about it. <snip> > > Two, what does not make sense is why Vaj misrepresents, > > in very specific and documentable ways, the basic > > instructions for practicing TM when he claims to have > > been a TM teacher. It's not just a matter of not using > > TM lingo, it's misrepresentation of the mechanics. > > (Extensive documentation on request.) > > I believe you here in terms of your perspective, but since > I have gotten in to this snare myself from time to time I > see it differently. When you have been out of TM for a > long time and have applied other points of view to the > teaching, you come up with your own understanding that can > be really different from the TM one. The question is whether that understanding represents TM accurately. Vaj says, "'Waiting for the mantra' is a natural and important part of TM." But "wait for the mantra" is *directly contrary* to the instructions for TM. > And it makes little sense to go back and parrot a POV > you have long since rejected. Especially since he has > studied systems with excruciating details of mental > states, it seems likely that he would view our TM > practice in a very different way. He might have his > own take on all sorts of details of what we do. I understand your point. But I'd simply ask you, if TM meditators "waited for the mantra," would they still be practicing TM as taught by MMY? (I'm not asking whether that couldn't be a valid way to meditate but whether they'd be practicing TM as you learned to teach it; the issue is that Vaj maintains this is how TM is to be practiced.) > Crappy example but its what I can come up with now. Lets > say that there was some kind of practice that actually WAS > more effortless than TM. In comparison the practice of TM > might seem contrived and having a quality of effort that > was objectionable to a practitioner of this system. They > might commit the ultimate blasphemous phrase that TM > requires effort and their practice does not. If it really > was their experience, then it would be true for them, but > it would seem like he had no understanding of TM wouldn't > it? I think some of this is going on in how Vaj describes > TM, which in his mind, is a superficial version of the > high octane one he is into. I'll grant the point for the sake of argument (the issue of "effort" is difficult to discuss, and I'm not convinced from what he's said that Vaj really gets the sense in which TM is effortless), but I don't think it applies in the case of "wait for the mantra." In discussing the "wait for the mantra" issue, moreover, he has insisted that this *is* the instruction and has misrepresented the TM checking notes in doing so. I can give you extensive documentation of his argument on that point. Because of the way he misrepresented the notes, there is zero doubt in my mind that at that point he was being deliberately dishonest. > > Neither of these smacks of intellectual honesty. How > > can a "sincere" comparison between teachings be made > > when one of them is consistently and willfully > > shortchanged? > > I sense his implied condescension concerning TM practice > since he believes he is doing something much deeper and > better. I am still not sure I can see motive for your > intellectual honesty angle. He has said that he enjoyed > the benefits of TM until he found something which he feels > is better. So he acknowledges that TM does the stuff I > enjoy from my practice. Given some of the other things he's said about TM, I take that as little more than lip service designed to give himself credibility as a critic. But that's IMHO, of course. (You can take the "H" in "IMHO" as lip service too, if you like.) > But then he claims that there are practices that lead you > to sit in a state of no thought for days at a time. > Personally I would rather sprinkle thumb tacks on my > Cheerios and eat them than sit in any state for more than > say an hour. But from his POV, if you accept the premise > that this is valuable, then it is also really clear that > TM doesn't deliver that. (Or hasn't to me, which suite me > just fine.) So I'm not sure he is shortchanging it as much > as he believes if comes up short. In this case, he's shortchanging it if he doesn't address the TM rationale for why no thought for days at a time would be counterproductive to achieving genuine enlightenment, compared to TM's cycling back and forth. He simply declares days-long no-thought to be better. > > Again, it's like a devout Roman Catholic scholar > > putting down Martin Luther because his teachings > > didn't accord with those of the Vatican, rather than > > making a reasoned case for the Vatican's teachings > > being more authentic and for why Luther's were a > > corruption. > > That is a great example because I suspect there hasn't > been a lot of the latter as much as the former in history. > But it brings up an interesting point of how intellectual > discourse is conducted here and my motive in pursuing this > conversation. > > I have long believed that a front row seat on a detailed > discussion on such details between you and Vaj as well as > others and Vaj would be fascinating. I agree completely. > Both you and Vaj are unique resources here IMO. My experience > discussing things with Vaj are characterized by a lack of > touchiness on his part that I am such a skeptic. He doesn't > care and I assume he figures that it is my loss and he is > willing to meet me where I can hang. Could a major part of that be your view that TM isn't as valuable as it claims? Which is more important to him, to convince others of the value of the approaches he espouses, or to convince others that TM's claims are false? I have the distinct impression it's the latter. Or here's another way to look at it: Vaj must know that very few people, even on FFL, have the time, resources, or inclination to get into the intensive types of training he claims to have undertaken. Could it be that his primary motivation for participation here is to get ego-boo from being the super-experienced, super-knowledgeable seeker compared to the rest of us? Did he pick FFL to engage in this exercise because he knows just enough about TM to issue superficially authoritative-sounding comparisons between his training and ours, comparisons that present ours as a kind of misguided kindergarten and elevate his to postgraduate work? Does this particular forum, in other words, provide him with the most favorable environment to puff himself up as the Big Deal Seeker? Are there any other forums in which he could similarly situate himself? I don't know if you've noticed, but any time someone turns up on FFL who has had training at a level comparable to his in similar traditions to those on which he discourses, in the vast majority of, if not all, instances, their expressed opinion has been that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about even with regard to *those* traditions. Does Vaj participate here because he's aware most of us don't have the knowledge to tell whether he has any idea what he's talking about with regard to the traditions in which he claims to be experienced? > And through the years I have found you to be able to connect > in the same way, noticing where I am drawing different lines > of belief, but secure in your own version enough that it > doesn't have to become personal. In other words, good > intellectual boundaries. > > I know this goes both ways for you two and that there has > developed a culture of disrespect that now destroys any > possibility for what I think could be an interesting > discussion. Of course you guys would have to buy into > giving a shit first. FWIW, when Vaj first turned up on alt.m.t, I did my damndest to engage him in a reasoned discussion without antipathy. His responses made that impossible to sustain. > > One may be sincere in one's beliefs about the value > > of a tradition, but when the sole basis for the > > negative judgment of a different tradition is that > > it's different from the tradition one favors, it's > > hard to accept it as a serious argument. > > In my mind this was the exact rap Maharishi ran on us. The > best he could do is call other systems like Yogananda's an > airplane compared to his jet. Well, MMY did give quite a few specifics as to how and why concentration and contemplation were less effective than effortless transcending. So I don't accept that the airplane/jet comparison was "the best he could do." That was the *conclusion*, not the argument. > And even on the surface, the fact that Maharishi departed > from the most fundamental and obvious principles in his > own tradition is clear. You have to buy into his view that > he is a super special reformer whose place in history is > unique to make that all OK. That's right, although your language is a bit loaded. And it's important to make a distinction between Shankara's tradition, i.e., what Shankara actually taught, and the "orthodox" tradition as it has come down to us through the Shankaracharya Order--or, alternatively, to show that there is, in fact, no such distinction to be made. MMY sets out his case for the distinction in the Gita, especially in the Preface but in bits and pieces throughout. IOW, did MMY depart from Shankara's tradition, or from the Shankaracharya Order tradition? Or are they one and the same, and MMY just departed from the whole thing and invented his own "tradition"? If this isn't *addressed*, it's being shortchanged. > So from Vaj's perspective he is viewing Maharishi the way > Maharishi viewed people teaching concentration techniques. > It is more than that he favors a certain system, he has > open contempt for what he believes Maharishi has done to > destroy the system he values. MMY has hardly "destroyed" the system Vaj values! MMY has a far better case on that score. > (of course I may be completely full of it since I am just > inferring what Vaj thinks about all this from his posts > here.) > > Vaj might > > as well be a fundamentalist Christian arguing that > > Jesus is the only way to salvation because the Bible > > says so and that TM is demonic because that isn't > > what *it* teaches. > > Or that the knowledge got lost and people like Maharishi > cashed in on people's ignorance. Meanwhile there is some > esoteric group of people that have maintained the > tradition and Vaj studied with them. Either way, as long as a case is made and the opposing case addressed on its own terms. I find very little to disagree with in the rest of your post. But I'd suggest that Vaj isn't an "underexploited resource" so much as that he resists being exploited in that way, for whatever reason. I especially agree with this: "And since he has knowledge of the TM system it would be up to him to map it across for us so we could understand what he was referring to." Except that I have serious doubts as to whether he has enough knowledge of the TM system to be able to do this. In fact, I strongly suspect his lack of knowledge of the TM system is the reason he *doesn't* do this. And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that it's due to lack of clear understanding of the other systems he talks about as well. > And as I'm sure you know, I am not arguing his case because I have bought > into his perspective about it all. I am equally skeptical about his sources > being any more authoritative about the meaning of these experiences as I am > about Maharishi's take. I am all for studying them but I am still of the > opinion that the context of the tradition allows for as much misinformation > to be passed on as good information. And the value of sitting in a state of > samadhi for a prolonged period of time is not a given for me at all, so > arguing that a technique could accomplish it does nothing for me. I have > come to my own conclusion that these states can be overdone and that causes > other problems. Problems that these traditions don't care about because it > is all couched in such a strong belief web about its assumed value. A > culture that thought it was Okay dokay for Ananda Moyama to be unable to > attend to her bodily functions for much of her life. The icky ones. I > believe all these systems need a major overhaul in light of what we have > learned since they were designed. > > This actually happened in the martial arts and it has been amazing. > Traditions of secrecy have been broken down in mixed martial arts and we know > know more about what things actually work and what things were fantasy. And > these old sensei's were no less entrenched in the value of their secret > traditions than the yogis. > > So I view Vaj as an underexploited resource here. I have always had such a > cordial relationship with him that I can't relate to seeing him as having > dark motives of deception. I believe he is as sincere as any of us and has a > strong, well-developed POV. But in the the antagonistic line of fire (for > which he has pulled as many triggers as any of us) we aren't gunna get to the > good stuff. And the good stuff would be just the kind of conversation you > mention, where the virtues of his system, whatever that is, is laid out in > detail in a way that allows us to decide if it has some merit worth > considering. And since he has knowledge of the TM system it would be up to > him to map it across for us so we could understand what he was referring to. > > Being a non-spiritual dilettante meditator, it is unlikely that it is going > to attract me on more than an intellectual level. I am fine with the > supposedly superficial benefits of my practice. I look for depth in my life > elsewhere after meditation. But for some here who are really into these > states of mind, I think we can do better than to assume that he has dark > motives of deception. > > And that goes the same for you Judy. You have been unfairly cast as a TB who > can't think thoughtfully about Maharishi's system without defensively > protecting it. So it is equally unhelpful in my Kumbaya vision for Vaj to > see you as a person not capable of understanding and appreciating what his > POV is. I would gladly read an exchange entered into with mutual respect and > the old "agree to disagree" vibe that characterizes some of the most > interesting exchanges on FFL.
