--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > On Jun 26, 2006, at 11:38 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> There's just not much I can say to orthodox dualists (TMer's). > > > > > > > > Your association of the term 'dualist' and 'TM' belies an > > > > incomplete understanding of the practice of TM. Please see > > > > my earlier post. > > > > > > I suggest you take it up with Ramana Maharishi then! :-) > > > > I wish I could- He looks like a wonderful soul. > > > > > Sorry, that's what mantra meditation is according to it's own > > > tradition! > > > > I can appreciate that, and I have no beef with your understanding > > of it that way- I just don't see it or experience it that way- > > tradition or no tradition. > > Jim, pursuing my earlier post on orthodoxy, do you > see how much better this response is than your > earlier one quoted in this same post? In the first, > you implied that Vaj had an "incomplete understanding" > of TM; in the second you recognize that the difference > in understandings may be based on a difference in > experience.
Hi, I wasn't trying to denigrate Vaj, but only to point out that I thought that he had an incomplete understanding of TM. Which based on what he said was a valid assumption. We continued a dialogue and he said later that TM could be seen as a complete path. Issue closed as far as I am concerned. Just to clarify my present position on TM orthodoxy, I took it as an article of faith when I first started the practice. I had very few clear experiences to use as a basis to form my own countervailing opinions. Over the years this has changed considerably. So I now speak solely from experience about TM and Maharishi. As for orthodoxy, it is not a bad thing when it supports something accurate and efficient, such as the orthodoxy we adhere to when learning to drive a car. Unfortunately in the spriritual realm, all of us have been poisoned to one degree or another by the established religions, and their present orthodoxy, which serves much more to keep their leaders in power than to bring their followers liberation. So we are and should be naturally cautious when approaching any orthodoxy of a spiritual or religious nature. But it doesn't follow that just because many religious and spiritual orthodoxies are corrupt that they all are. As you've implied many times, the world ain't just black and white. There is much to be said for shades of grey, both between spiritual organizations and within them. As to which way we should lean when interpreting Maharishi, that is a personal choice for each of us. My only intent in all of this was to state that TM is not solely a dualistic practice, based on my experience. > > Again, I'm pointing this out because I'm really tired > of attempts to denigrate posters here that are based > on TM orthodoxy. Maharishi's opinions are no better > than anyone else's. They're just opinions, and many > other spiritual teachers (not to mention sages within > his *own* tradition) disagree with them. Disagreeing > with them does *not* imply not understanding them. > Those who want you to believe otherwise have an agenda. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
