--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > > > Much of what he [Vaj] 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.
It plainly is NOT. I have encountered quite a few teachers from other traditions that would (and have) considered TM a false path. So has Vaj. Therefore what he said is absolutely correct. I can think of half a dozen traditions that would consider TM a false path for no other reason than because the TMO charges money for it. That is their right. YOU don't agree with it, so you're characterizing what he said as "incorrect." It is not. You just don't like it. <snip to> > > 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. It certainly applies to you. You did it just above. You took a statement of Vaj's that is clearly literally correct and claimed that it was "incorrect" because you don't agree with it. Many people do agree with it. What makes those who agree with his statement "incorrect" and those who agree with your view "correct?"
