--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > This weekend I stumbled across an interesting article on > a Buddhist forum about "Arguing Bestness." It was approp- > riate for the audience because -- sadly -- Buddhsm is far > from free of people arguing compulsively that their sect/ > tradition/lineage is "the best." Reading it reminded me > of FFL, and the history of the TMO.> > > The author's point was a good one in my opinion. He posed > the koan: "Is arguing the 'bestness' of your lineage a > backhanded way of saying that you're worried it isn't?">
That's ironic, since it is only the anti-TM crowd such as yourself, that is constantly arguing. The rest of us are just agreeing with modern science and well accepted evidence in the mainstream. We don't feel the need to argue, but just present you with the known scientific facts. Your posting of this, like 90% of your posts, is because YOU want to argue with people (and with science.) The rest of us are safe in trusting to science to sort the wheat from the chaff. We're all set, we don't need to argue, science does it for us. Buddhists don't seem to understand science, the are too caught up in airy fairy philosophy which the modern era is not intereted in. We are the followers of science. OffWorld. > > His contention was that -- when it comes to enlightenment > and realization -- when you can *produce* it consistently > in your students, there is no need to claim that you can. > > In a tradition that *could* produce enlightenment consist- > ently, prospective students could just look around the room > during the "intro lecture" and check out the supposedly > enlightened. They could go up to them after the lecture > and talk with them, and get a feel for whether their > enlightenment was real, and something they were interested > in attaining themselves. If they decided it was, they could > begin the practice and -- theoretically -- experience this > enlightenment themselves within a short period of time. > > In such a scenario, where is the need for a "sales pitch?" > Where is the need for "scientific proof?" And more impor- > tant, where is the need for "debate" over the claimed > "bestness" of the tradition? A tradition either *delivers* > on its claims, or it doesn't. Nothing to "debate." > > So where did the tendency to debate TM's "bestness" come from? > > First, and obviously, it came from Maharishi, who proclaimed > TM's "bestness" from Day One, and taught his TM teachers to > do the same. > > Second, from Shankara, the founder of the lineage Maharishi > claimed to represent. His history is an endless litany of > traveling around India debating his belief system's "best- > ness" and supremacy over all other belief systems and trad- > itions, and declaring "victory" in every debate. > > These two reasons are fact; no one can argue with them. My > third proposed reason is pure theory on my part. > > I think that the Shankara/Maharishi tradition of compulsively > arguing the "bestness" of their spiritual tradition comes > from the fact that this tradition cannot *deliver* on its > promises of enlightenment. Or at least not consistently and > often enough to have that *stand on its own* as the only > "sales pitch" needed. > > Think about it. If you had started TM and had begun to have > personal experiences of enlightenment very quickly, would > you have ever needed "scientific evidence" to convince you > that enlightenment existed? If you had been consistently > making progress yourself, would you have needed Other > People's Stories to convince you that someone somewhere > *was* making progress? > > "Scientific research" is a form of Other People's Stories. > IMO, that is. Other People's Stories are what spiritual trad- > itions that cannot consistently produce enlightenment tell > their students to keep them keepin' on *as* students. When > you hear about *someone else* having some "good experience," > that is supposed to inspire you to stick around until, hope- > fully, you have one, too. IMO, hearing that "science" has > confirmed that some are having "good experiences" is > supposed to accomplish the same thing. > > IMO, the "science" is *not* designed to appeal to the non-TMer > as part of a "sales pitch." It's designed to appeal to the > *existing TMer* who has not experienced what was promised to > him, to convince him that he will...someday. > > IMO, arguing compulsively with others, presenting the same > "scientific evidence" and the same Other People's Stories > that they settled for instead of actual experience, is again > more designed to convince *the people doing the arguing* about > "bestness" than it is to convince the people they're arguing > with. > > Just a theory...one that I probably won't care enough about > to "debate" with anyone who takes issue with it. After all, > I'm not presenting any tradition or lineage as "best," > much less selling one. I'll leave the arguing to those > who are. >
