--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "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?
Feelings aren't what I am discussing here, so I can't answer that for you. > > 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. This is exactly what I am talking about-- Message 125394: "Of course TM...would certainly be considered a false path on a number of grounds." This is not expressed as a theory, and this is plainly incorrect. > > > 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 don't care. Of course, some get some benefit from him, some get a lot, and some get none. 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. Vaj often speaks so cryptically, I have no choice but to take what he says as meaningless. 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. > Why bring this last thing up? I don't think it applies to either of us.
