--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 2009, at 4:50 PM, BillyG. wrote: > > >> What I meant by "us ignorant TMers" is the fact that your posts > >> mostly seem to be saying that you have more knowledge and > >> experience that most TMers, or at least the ones here. And to say > >> this list is not a Maharishi list is ridiculous. Sure its not an > >> oficial TMo list, but the reason pretty much everyone is on here is > >> because they have had, or do have a connection to TM > > > > Although most of the TM'ers on this group are pretty bright, I would > > have to say there are many TM'ers that 'are' ignorant when it comes > > to Yoga! > > > > You see, MMY never taught all the limbs of Yoga, nor did he teach TM > > in the context of Yoga, in spite of his comment it IS Yoga. He > > taught it in the context of Science, therefore there are actually > > TM'ers who think the OM vibration is somehow evil since MMY > > recommended against it (for householders). > > > > There are also TM'ers who think they don't need Religion though MMY > > himself says it's necessary in the SOB. As a result there are > > morally lazy meditators who don't practice any form of ethical > > development. > > > > I remember one tm'er on alt-tm who didn't think the chakras played a > > role in TM, again because MMY never *formally* taught that, (until a > > recent lecture surfaced with him discussing it), I could go on. Vaj > > has some good points, albeit, he's a little uppity. > > Some good points B. > > But I would disagree that it absolutely necessary to learn, as Dr. > Pete would call it, our spiritual pornography: all these details about > our subtle body. It may be enough to have some simple, skillfully > imparted instructions. Even the deepest secrets of yoga are, after > all, incredibly simple. It's more a matter of what's right for the > right person. Thus the importance of people with experience and a > certain amount of mastery and/or a certain amount of experience.
I was only referring to theoretical knowledge, (Sankhya) not it usefulness (or lack of it) in the ability to transcend, Ramakrishna was illiterate. Though theoretical knowledge (Sankhya) is important and compliments the practical side, or Yoga. "The theoretical aspect is called the wisdom of Sankhya; it brings understanding of the absolute and the relative fields of life as separate, one from another. The practical aspect is called Yoga, and it brings direct experience of these two fields of life in separation" MMY Gita Ch3 > In the Tibetan Buddhist traditions, when someone wants to become a > guru, or lama, they first know how to meditate (hopefully), then learn > to purify their body, mind and energy and how to connect to the guru > inside. If they're ready, they go into a three year, three month > retreat where they learn, but not necessarily master, a large range of > practices, in order to help a large range of students. Some they may > master, some they may not. Some may master none. But the principle is, > be ready to teach, as skillfully as possible, the largest number of > students. Go as deep as you can and as wide as you can. Some people > gain these skills, some don't. > > Still others might just concentrate on one specific skill, like > meditation. Same rules apply. Go as deep as you can, and as broad as > you can. But still, some will go deep, some will go wide, some will do > neither. All may try to teach. Woe to those who get the latter. >
