--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Hmm, > > > > since there are so many TM teachers on this board, nay > > even 'enlightened' ones, of what importance is it, that Vaj > > did TM or not? We have enough information about TM right? > > There are, just to cite an example many TMers here, who > > will swear that TM is the best spiritual technique, without > > ever trying all the others, so judging other techniques on > > the basis of what one has studied oneself, is at least not > > such an unusual business it seems. > > However, those people do not present themselves on forums > dedicated to other techniques as having been practitioners > and teachers of those techniques in an attempt to give > themselves credibility when they compare the other techniques > unfavorably to TM.
Yes, right, but I am not trying to defend Vaj in case he lied - he just stated that he learned TM in 1974, which I think totally possible. But my statement was about the whole discussion being sort of unnecessary. Please note that most of all our cherrished knowledge is second hand knowledge. So people like to cite scientific research as a proof, or take any biographical detail of Maharishis life, any reference to Guru Dev (for example Robin makes matter of factly statements about Guru Dev, as if he knew, TM directly came from him etc.) And another point is, what I learned during my TM time, TM, due to its flexibility, as it is stated in some intro lectures, is even a different technique to different folks, as it gives different experiences to different people. So your TM is not my TM or Vajs TM for that matter. This is the 101 of TM, no two experiences are alike. Furthermore, all of the claims about the uniqueness of TM and anything Maharishi, which actually forms the basis of this discussion, is all second hand knowledge, as people have hardly tried out enough methods to really make this assertion. This is the whole basis of the discussion: TM is unique, so anybody not having done TM cannot have a similar experience, lets say of transcending (as it is stated here many times). But of course this statement is based on belief and hear-say. > > I say all this without actually *knowing* Vaj's involvement > > or non-involvement in TM. I never thought he was a TM teacher, > > and, in the past, have myself expressed doubt about his > > involvement. And yet, that does not mean that all he says is > > invalid, in fact I find several points -on TM - where I agree > > with him, and he exhibits knowledge, obviously others are > > missing out. > > Perfectly fine for him to share his vast knowledge with > us, as Xeno suggested: > > > > He seems well versed in other things not related directly > > > to TM; I think he would have a stronger presence here if > > > he just owned up that he was not a teacher, and maybe not > > > even a TM meditator, and played to his strong points. Yes, point taken. > <snip> > > I do not join his overall judgement on TM or all things > > Maharishi, as I think he is going clearly overboard here, > > but it is a matter of judgement, where I see the whole > > thing in an overall positive light - with all criticsim, > > and he chooses to see it negative - but so what? > > So do many others here choose to see it as negative. But > their involvement with TM is not in question. Right. > > There's a meme that's frequently invoked by Vaj and other > critics that TMers go after the critics simply because of > their negative views of TM/MMY/the TMO. But that isn't the > case; plenty of negative views are expressed without that > kind of response from TM defenders. We may disagree, but > we don't accuse them of deception. > > (On the other hand, Vaj and a couple of the other critics > have a particularly nasty and unpleasant way of voicing > their negative views that's totally unnecessary, > including personal insults to TMers, and they come in for > some well-deserved flak on that account as well.) I just stated that I think in his judgement he goes too far, oveboard IMO, but it doesn't make all he says invalid. > > Do not other's here adore and eulogize TM and Maharishi > > in an overly romantic way, while stating simultaneausly > > it is the most deceptive way, the devil invented? > > Only Robin has done that. Yes, I was polemic about Robin. I do not want to insult or hurt Robin btw., I am just stating something I see as a contradiction. > > Or did I misread something here? How honest and serious > > can a person be, making simultaneously such contradictory > > statements? Talking of integrity. Just sayin' > > If you read carefully, they aren't contradictory. > > As I see it, Robin had to force himself to give up something > that had meant the world to him because he found it to be > *ultimately*--in the full meaning of the term--deceptive. Which is a deceptive perception IMO- > Whether or not one is inclined to agree with him, it must > have been extraordinarily painful, and it's reflected in > his posts about what was for him a profound loss. Yes, this is understood. It is so for many people who were heavily involved, myself included, but it is the normal process, many are going through. > It's hardly unheard-of after a wrenching divorce for one > former spouse to speak with great passion about the other > while acknowledging the impossibility of continuing the > relationship, for whatever reason (perhaps because the > other cheated, to load the analogy a bit). Sure, that kind of relationship can be compared, and it is really like a divorce, (I think, as I have never been divorced). But there is a difference: If I cut a relationship with my wife, I am not making assumptions about anybody elses relationship to my wife having to be equal, otherwise I couldn't take him serious. If I do that I am a pimp, who is trying to sell my wife. It is these kind of statements I am arguing about. If somebody says as if he is betraying Guru Dev, because of whatever he says, not knowing about Guru Dev from any type of first hand account etc. I mean these typical TB statements, which as you rightly point out, almost don't occure on this forum anymore, and then unexpected out of the mouth of a person who makes the most outrageous claims with regard to all knowledge eastern. > And who are you, pray tell, to call someone's expression > of their adoration "overly romantic"? Do you know? How doyou know? > For your taste, > perhaps, and you're entitled to that perspective. But it > isn't right, IMHO, to state it as if it were an > established fact. Some here have found the posts you're > referring to deeply moving, even tragic. > > As I recall, you've said you never had the experience of > falling in love with MMY when you were in the TMO. 'Falling in love' as in a romantic love. But that doesn't mean I didn't love him. There is a difference. I very well experienced his love, at one time a completely impersonal love, an experience for which I am grateful to this day. Do we always have to make personal statements to be believed? No wonder I have to change my handles. No, what I am refering to overly romantic are statements, where, matter of factly, he says that since Christ there was nobody like Maharishi. I call this overly romantic, because he can have only second hand knowledge even of the existence of Christ, and he just doesn't know anyone else, any of all the great masters who even lived in the last century or throughout history. I assume I am dealing with a grown up person, and I simply do not expect such exaggerations from a somewhat reflective grown up person. Period. > That's > fine, not everyone did. But by the same token, you aren't > in a position to question the sincerity and depth of > others' feelings about him when you haven't experienced > what they did. > How do you know I did not experience? You just don't know. But then I am not going from house to house with that. And yes, I did also fall in love with teachers, or saints, even I was about to fall in love with Ammachi one time, but I knew she was not my master. But that does not entitly me to make exaggerated and generalizing statements. But I do undertsand it is not easy for anybody. So, in no way, do I attack Robins feelings, but I do attack the mind-state of TB he formed around it.
