--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On May 6, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Richard M wrote: > > > > Well I think the crux of the argument here would be that TM is > claiming to be from this tradition, yet time after time it comes up > against that tradition in terms of errors, typically on things that > were simply never told to us. This actually clarifies a lot of the > deadends people will run into, so it is something worthwhile, not > mere specious intellectualizing. Now some will claim that MMY > "restored the tradition" to some original, better working state. The > fact is, the Patanjali/yogic tradition(s) continues to be passed down > and replicated like it always has been. There's was never any thing > that needed to be restored or fixed. It "works" just fine. But it is > interesting to see where the departures are and the issues they give > rise to. > So your argument appears primarily to be a scholarly a sort of comparative, historical view of meditation methods. Interesting, but of no value to me in any practical sense.
The one possible practical point your raised is "This actually clarifies a lot of the deadends people will run into, so it is something worthwhile," I would think each individual is best to determine what is worthwhile for them -- and perhaps don't need you to tell them, at a distance. This is smelling like another version of the White Knight syndrome -- a need to save feeble, non-thinking, immature, and unworldly practicioners / women from caddish, brutish, practices / men. Thanks again another great point for the list. 4) You are too (stupid, lazy, uneducatioed, imature, feeble) to figure out whats GOOD for YOU. Stand aside knave, Mighty mouse is bow here!
