--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 2006, at 12:16 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Nov 17, 2006, at 10:46 AM, sparaig wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Neither simple nor complex. > >>> > >>> And you keep claiming that shamatha is the same as TM. Here's what > >>> an apparently > >>> famous Shamatha advocate says about shamatha. He, at least, has the > >>> excuse that he > >>> never learned TM: > >>> > >> <gracious snip> > >> > >> No that's NOT what I claim. I merely said TM is a *form* of Shamatha. > >> That's certainly not to imply that all forms of Shamatha are the same > >> as TM, they are not. > >> > >> There are literally hundreds of different styles of Shamatha. > >> > >> > > > > > > Well, so this guy's description of Shamatha certainly doesn't sound > > like TM. Whose > > description of Shamatha does? > > If it sounded like it, it would be like it? Is that your reasoning? > > I still think you could have a future as a TM standup comedian. >
Perhaps. I note you avoid the question whenever I bring it up.
