--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <llundrub@> wrote: > > > > Jim, I think what comes across in Vaj's post are superior knowledge > ? and that's one thing that will irk everybody again and again. > <snip> > > That someone may know more than I do doesn't bother me in the least. > Often it is a great shrtcut to learning. > > It is as I said his distortions and condescending attitude regarding > TM and Maharishi that bothers me.
One might ask, WHY? I mean, that sounds a lot like attachment to me. WHY should anyone care that someone else doesn't feel the same way about their spiritual teacher and his teachings that he does? > Much of what he says in that regard > is incorrect. Like what? Vaj often expresses his *theories* of why Maharishi acts as he does, but in my experience he usually makes it clear that's all they are, his ideas, his theories. What makes them any less "correct" than yours? You'll have to give a concrete example of what you consider "incorrect" before I'll believe that you're doing anything more than reacting out of a continuing attachment/loyalty to Maharishi. > And who he has met or spoken to in his life means a lot > to him, and nothing personal, it means nothing to me, > regarding him or anyone else. Great. Some of us, with the benefit of water under the bridge and numerous experiences with numerous other teachers, pay very little attention to what *Maharishi* says about spiritual development. I would say that I consider about 10-15% of what he taught me valid, and useful. The rest I class as as meaningless to me as you seem to class the things Vaj reports on from other teachers. Again, everything is as it should be, until someone gets uptight about the fact that others don't believe the same things he/she does.
