So now its smell...next thing you know it'll be a form of consciousness; co-dependence...or something...
________________________________ From: whynotnow7 <whynotn...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 11:55:00 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: MZ - You don't know the references It might help if he stopped meditating on "alabama".:-) Vaj has *never* passed my smell test wrt TM, either practicing it or teaching it. Another BS artist on here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote: > > RC > > Vag's so-called critique is based upon Mahayana Buddhist Shastra. > > He applies their schema which they use to develop their powers > of concentration to the mechanics of TM/TM-Sidhi. In essence, this is > how he believes he can prove that TM/TM-Sidhi is an erroneous practice. > > He ignores the MahaMudra and Dzogchen practices which supersede these > Mahayana Shastra practices because they are closer to effortless TM. In > fact > he claims that any object of attention (alambana/support) in meditation > necessarily keeps awareness bound to relative functioning and prevents > the > mind from resolving into its source/origin. > > Read it and weep, Curtis. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Dear Curtis, > > > > Your argument that Vaj could very well be a TM meditator and TM > initiator is explained entirely by a scientific and skeptical frame of > reference. The artist in you is held in abeyance. I refute the entire > basis upon which you make this thesis. Did you read my two posts to him, > Curtis? The only way I can explain your position vis-a-vis Vaj's claim > to be a TMer and (once) a Maharishi-ized person is that you yourself, > miraculously, have escaped from all the effects of doing TM, teaching > TM, and spending four years at MIU getting a degree in philosophy. I > would like you to consider putting to music your argument with Judy: it > is not *inspired*. It is very clever, brilliant even, but I don't buy it > as coming from that place in you where your heart fuels your > intelligence. You will smack me down but good for all this, but I detect > something mischievously pseudo-Socratic in this whole dialectical piece > (with Judy). Of course you just *might be dead right*, but if you are > (i.e. that Vaj was once a TMer and an initiator) it won't be for the > reasons you adduce. It will be because of an entirely different > principle. What, I don't know. Vaj's allegiance to his anti-TM, > anti-Maharishi position is entirely *non-reactive* to any previous > experience of TM and Maharishi. It is coming from a different place. For > all I know his dismissal of TM as negative compared to other Eastern > spiritual practices, and Maharishi as a false Guru compared to other > Eastern spiritual teachers—that is, based on the criteria and > evidence he applies—may be the correct view. I don't think it is > (vide my last post to him); but I would not want to go to the wall > insisting I am right and he is wrong. > > > <snip> >
