--- In [email protected], kaladevi93 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "llundrub" <llundrub@> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think he says TM is a fraud, just that some aspects > > > of the teaching are very limited and limiting. > > > > He says it's a fraud because it claims *not* to be > > limited and limiting. > > > > However, he obviously doesn't understand the teaching. > > It would be one thing if he were able to state it > > clearly and accurately, then explain how it's limited > > and limiting; but what he presents as MMY's teaching > > is one misconception after another. > > > > Plus which, his approach to discussion is intellectually > > dishonest in the extreme, this current exchange with > > Lawson being a particularly egregious example. > > > > Just for one thing, in discussions with knowledgeable > > TMers, when asked to explain why such-and-such in > > the Buddhist or Yogic tradition is superior to or > > contradicts MMY's teaching, he either comes out with > > a string of impenetrable jargon and obscure references > > or claims the TMers couldn't possibly understand his > > point. > > > > If he himself actually understands what he's talking > > about, he ought to be able to explain it in plain > > language. Instead, he becomes evasive. > > Funny, I find his comments insightful and clear.
I'm sure if you're familiar with the jargon, as you apparently are, they're a lot clearer. But if you'll notice, I said "explain it in plain language." > He just doesn't take any BS No, he gives it, he doesn't take it. or is sick of it > to death (like many of us, no doubt!). > > There are many TM TBers here. If you think otherwise, > you're either blind, stupid or insane. What's your definition of TM TBer? Anyone who doesn't constantly put down TM/the TMO/MMY? Anyone who dares to disagree on any point with those who do, or suggest that a less negative interpretation of something is a possibility? Anyone who is still practicing TM?
