On Jan 9, 2007, at 12:25 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In [email protected], "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
--- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, jyouells2000 wrote:
The problem is, Jim, that unless someone(s) here has a personal
relationship
with Maharishi we (they) don't know what he knows. Just taking what
has
come out here about Maharishi it's obvious that we only know
what he
presents
publically. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little
relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of
PR.
There is so much hidden in the TMO, that unless we know from our
own
experience, we're just guessing...
Or unless of course you knew and talked with one of M's closest
confidants who helped set up SCI and the birth of the sidhi
program... :-)
Having done that you'd know that he knew none of this stuff, but had
to seek it out with couriers dispatched to various locales. You'd
also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I
believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M
knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi!
I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of
the
matter.
Nothing would surprise me anymore....
So how did this stuff get discovered in the first place Xenu left
it our brains when we were
exiled to Earth?
Or maybe ancient sages invented it on their own? Why can't a gifted
amateur reinvent the
core teachings after hearing the descriptions of spiritual
techniques? And why couldn't
said amateur end up getting it more "right" than the people who
merely learned it by rote?
Better to learn it from the flowering of the teaching inside onself
as jnana-vidya and verifiy with ones teacher. That subject, object
and intervening process betwixt the two is such a indirect way to
learn. Cut and pasting, diluting and marketing standard fair should
never be confused with the former.
