He is easy enough to find on the net but his other trackable interests are more about certain aspects of Western esoterica. However he likes to look down on everyone so he keeps to a safe height. Pun intended.
However, if challeged in a pressing way, he feels threated and looks for something personal to reveal about you, even if he once promised to keep such personal correspondences between the two of you off-line. Thus be warned ... only give him personal info which is unprovable ... (my momma smoked cigars) ... heh, heh. In Buddist Tantra this is called breaking samaya (samaya is a pledge of honor -like a knight would give to his liege lord). Of course this is not a problem for people without any honor. So while it would be legit to say "this other tradition says (a+b=c) rather than what TM says (c+e= g)", he doesn't work that way. He is on a quest to disinfranchise people from their practice ... which is a form of spititual slander -something consisidered more than just bad form. Different religions do this all the time. Mahayanists do this to so-call Hinayana Buddhists all the time. The same is done to the Mahayana by Tantric and Dzogchen practitioners, although most Buddhist teachers no longer do it. Westerner's don't usually buy into it much because we've heard all this kind of stuff before ... this religion, that sect, my guru sez , my Lama sez, etc, etc. However, this is probably where he gets his inclination to try to stick it to TM practitioners. However, I know his sources. No reason to stay silent while he weaves a web designed to dazzle the uninformed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" whynotnow7@ wrote: > > > > 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. > > I have felt Vaj has missed some critical detail in claiming to be associated with TM in some way. In attempting to research him I did not find much. He seems to work in some field involving medical technology and has interests, or had interests in some esoteric phenomena, including Ayurveda and alchemy, assuming my cursory research has properly connected data. As he seems to desire privacy, I will say no more than this. > > Even if a person here is not associated with TM in any meaningful way, this does not negate the possibility that they have something to say that has valuable import on what goes 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> > > > > > >
