--- 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. He just doesn't take any BS > or is sick of it > to death (like many of us, no doubt!).
Alright. So you're saying that Vaj, who can't furnish any direct reference to the studies he claims exists, is being more clear than moi, who does furnish references to such studies. > > There are many TM TBers here. If you think otherwise, you're either blind, > stupid or > insane. >
