Eh, as I said, I have a friend who is reasonably accomplished as a Vedic/Hindu scholar, who considers MMY to be the "real deal." YMMV of course.
Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:53 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > Well, you see, I think it is YOU who are missing MMY's nuances here. > > > > Certainly stress can have good and bad qualities (eustress and > > distress). However, anything that pulls one away from the quality > > of functioning of the nervous system where pure consciousness is > > always present, is stressful. > > > > That doesn't mean that it can't be fun, beneficial in its own way > > etc. only that it isn't pure consciousness. Of course, the point of > > the TM *program* is to alternate meditation, which approaches the > > state of pure consciousness, with regular activity, which is > > inherently stressful, so that eventually one can be in a state > > where pure consciousness is never lost. This doesn't mean that > > activity will cease to be stressful in the western sense, only that > > the nervous system has become strong enough to maintain pure > > consciousness, at least during relatively stressful activity. > > > > In a sense, you could say that all activity has become eustress- > > ish, though, of course, some activity is more inherently > > eustressful than other activity. > > > I think you're missing what Mahesh was trying to say. He was > obviously attempting to put the idea of the purification of the nadis > into terms that westerners could understand, and at the same time > give it a veneer of respectability by attempting to make it look > "scientific". Two things though: the two are not reconcilable as > there is no (none, zero, zip) science on nadi-bindu-vayu and stress > and secondly Mahesh had little experiential knowledge of these deeper > and essential practices. This becomes manifestly obvious if you > listen to the tapes where M. tried to muddle his way thru these > descriptions of "stress" in the nadis - which are most likely ripped > straight out of Arthur Avalon's books. But it's clear he doesn't have > a clue to what he's talking about, but it does lend further credence > to the fact that he was prompted by western students prior to his > "revelations". Since he was caught at Estes Park doing this and we > have evidence up and through the Swiss period, we know his knowledge > was not self knowledge, but gleaned from common translations of > tantric texts. > > So anyone who puts any validity into his "unstressing" schtick is > just fooling themselves. >
