--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 2006, at 2:53 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > >> > >> How sad that some people consider him [Dana] an "expert" in > >> this regard. He doesn't have a clue what he's talking > >> about. > >> > >> And obviously you don't either, if you think what you > >> quoted from him in these last few posts is somehow > >> definitive. It's just pathetic. > > > > Not to start an argument but to ask a question > > I feel is relevant, how is Vaj considering Dana a > > credible authority any different than you consider- > > ing Maharishi a credible authority? > > Dana is not only an experienced TM teacher who clearly understands > the mechanics of TM (although not necessarily by relying on TM- > speak
Even though "TM-speak"--i.e., in this case, the specific instruction as to one's attitude toward mantra vs. thoughts--is what makes TM TM. If Dana doesn't understand this, he does *not* understand the mechanics of TM--nor, obviously, do you. > something very upsetting to TBs) Because his nonuse of "TM-speak" in this case *misrepresents what TM is*. he's also a practitioner and teacher > of Zen, Shamatha and other styles of meditation, often with > experienced high lamas. In addition to being a practitioner, he's > also an academic in this field and spends a lot of time with the > people in these traditions in India. None of this *helps*, Vaj, if he doesn't grasp the mechanics of TM. He can talk about these other techniques till he's blue in the face, but when he starts comparing them to TM without understanding TM's mechanics, he gets into big trouble. > As I've always stated, it's important to understand how manasika- > japa (mental mantra meditation) from the perspective of mantra- > shastra. Why? Because it's explained in exquisite detail, rather > than in a watered down, simplified fashion and that IS the highest > authority of mantra theory and practice. Does mantra-shastra make the point that thoughts are a natural part of meditation and that one shouldn't try to hold onto the mantra? > So listening to people argue about details of what they've been > taught to parrot on the "mechanics of TM" has little meaning, it's > like listening to 1st graders who know basic math argue algebra to > someone conversant in advanced algebra. Actually that's what Dana's spiel sounds like to people who *have* grasped the mechanics of TM--not just from what we've been told, but from personal experience. > > It seems to me that what *both* of you do is play > > "dueling authorities" here. I don't see a lot of > > differences between the two approaches except in > > which sources you consider authoritative enough > > to quote to support the things you've chosen to > > believe. > > I just go to the source.:-) This tradition has credible and extant > pundit and scriptural sources on mantra meditation. MMY claims the sources have been misinterpreted, so this doesn't help either. MMY's position is roughly analogous to that of Martin Luther. It's meaningless to claim that Luther wasn't credible on the grounds that he didn't adhere to the Catholic tradition; his whole raison d'etre was to insist that the Catholic tradition had misinterpreted Jesus' teaching. And yet Luther and the Catholic authorities were working from the same sources. It's an exquisitely detailed and beautiful science. We do it it a > great disservice if we downgrade it to TM being the end-all and be- > all of meditation though. > > > The parallel goes further. When those beliefs > > are challenged, both of you tend to reply by > > calling the "authority's" credentials or character > > into question. > > > > So where's the difference? > > The depth is lacking in the "Maharishi sez" claims. It's > superficial and elementary "Elementary" and "deep" are not necesarily mutually exclusive. What is truly elementary may be that which *underlies* everything else, as opposed to what is on the surface. , that all. It's a smaller picture. I prefer the whole > picture, the big picture, the whole story. It's a wonderful science. If you've got what underlies the big picture wrong, the details of that picture may be seriously askew. 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/
