--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 20, 2007, at 10:03 AM, authfriend wrote: <snip> > > Again, this is all based on one particular > > definition of "legitimate" samadhi taken from > > the "traditional" literature. It does not prove > > that other definitions are somehow wrong or > > illegitimate. > > Isn't this where you dust off that old study (Larry Domash?) which > has a reputed and hilarious history of TM that only a certified TB > with Vedic Koolaid® in their veins would believe?
Huh?? Complete non sequitur. (Also, not only have I not claimed that history was true, I've pointed out why it might have been crafted as it was.) > I don't buy it Judy. Maybe you'd have more success with a TB > audience. > > Maybe you're right and Mahesh isn't practicing in the Patanjali or > Shankaracharya tradition. That would be a good dodge if objective > listeners would buy it. I don't, I think it's just a lame excuse > on your part (one you repeatedly try to use). Note that Vaj has twice used here a fallacious rhetorical technique he appears to have borrowed from Barry: Put invented words in someone's mouth, then righteously declare you aren't buying them. I have never, as noted, claimed Domash's TM history was true; nor have I ever suggested that MMY wasn't practicing in the Patanjali "or" (should be "and") Shankaracharya tradition--to the contrary. Vaj made all this up out of whole cloth because he can't address the point I was *actually* making (which he, of course, snipped). Here it is again: MMY has always been explicit that he is, like Luther, a *reformer*, correcting erroneous views that had crept into the "traditional" teaching. To prove that his corrections are in error, you can't simply point out that what he says is different from the "traditional" teaching, you have to address what he says on its own terms. If he wants to make up a > new definition, then maybe he should call it "Maharishi's New > Samadhi" and trademark it? If he wanted to make up a "new" definition, perhaps he'd do just that. But Vaj is, once again, trying to evade the real issue, which is whether MMY has made up a "new" definition or has restored the meaning of the *original* definition. Vaj doesn't know which is the case. *I* don't know which is the case. The difference between us is that I'll openly acknowledge I don't know, whereas Vaj will pretend that he does.
