--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- 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. > > > I think you have misjudged the level of my give-a-shit-meter on this topic. >
Tough luck 'bro - you are one of the rare FFL swing voters here and we will keep coming after you. So learn to deal with it or switch off the TV er.. stay away from FFL. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- 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> > > >
