Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Former Meditator Creates High-Tech Enlightenment...'

[Llundrub]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> wrote: > Judy, I think you take the high road with regards to TM philosophy > because it's what you're most comfortable with. Not sure what you mean by "take the high road." Not sure what you're getting at in this post generally, but I'll make what comments I can.     ------I think you define perfectly what 'taking the high road' is, better than any amount of explanation I could provide.  Lines such as,   "Finally, the term I'd use would be "metaphysical system" rather than "philosophy."  It's also important that the TM metaphysics has a systematic experiential component, which distinguishes it from a philosophy per se."      Actually, the former three paragraphs before the above quote were all pretty, 'high-roadish.' I mean, that you need to tell us, many of whom are MIU grads and such, what Maharishi's system is is sort of like preaching to the choir?  Or maybe more like preaching to the molested little boys of the choir? > Now think about this.  If the philosophy wasn't simple and easy to > understand could you really be such an expert on it? That is, could > any of us? Well, I dunno.  In the first place, I don't consider myself an "expert."  But whatever degree of mastery I've achieved, I've probably studied MMY's teaching more thoroughly than any other.  Maybe I could be as knowledgeable about others if I studied them as much.   -----Whether you consider yourself a expert is not really true. You obviously consider yourself an expert since you can say such things as,   "The term scientists use for neat theories is "elegant."  I think MMY's teaching (Advaita plus Yoga) is incredibly elegant."   It shouldn't need much explanation that if you think that Maharishi's system is elegant that means that you also know what inelegant systems look like. Moreover, you even describe elegance in the next paragraph (which I won't quote). Thus assuming that you are ipso fact the judge and jury of philosophical systems, or an expert, at least of their various levels of elegance ;)     > Considering this stupefying simplicity, could it be anything > besides a bit too simple? I'm not sure it's all that easy to understand once you get beyond the basics, first (based on the amount of misunderstanding floating around); and second, I'm not sure simplicity--such as it may be-- is a negative characteristic when it comes to philosophy.   ----Again, you said you didn't consider yourself an expert but you then say that there's a lot of "misunderstanding floating around."  I wonder if you ever had the Forest Academy on Vedic Science where Maharishi discussed the difference between Vedic Cognition and Vedanga Cognition?  The term scientists use for neat theories is "elegant."  I think MMY's teaching (Advaita plus Yoga) is incredibly elegant. One way of defining "elegance" in this context would have to do with the proportion of theory to its explanatory value.  TM theory has, it seems to me, a tremendous amount of explanatory value contained in a relatively small collection of premises. Finally, the term I'd use would be "metaphysical system" rather than "philosophy."  It's also important that the TM metaphysics has a systematic experiential component, which distinguishes it from a philosophy per se.   ----There can be no elegance with regards to an oversimplified collection of tenets regarding life, its nature, or its solutions.  There is no Occam's razor with regard to the summum bonum of existance.  Paradox cannot be reconciled, and finding Maharishi's system to be advaita disregards the other aspects of Maharishi's teachings such as heavy reliance on Yagyas for solving the various 'problems' of life.  As you should well know the advaita of Maharishi is Advaita Vedanta, or the advaita of where the Vedas leave off. That advaita presupposes that the vedas themselves are not in fact the solution to the problems of like, and hence moksha or liberation begins once the Veda ends.   This "metaphysical" advaita that you ascribe to Maharishi, is odd considering that Maharishi, has never even used the word advaita in anything he ever spoke. If I am mistaken then please give us the quote. Over to you...dunno if I've addressed what you were getting at.   ----Frankly I forget as well, at this point.  Oh yeah, I suggest that the reason you agree with maharishi at all is because like a coloring book, Maharishi's system of Vedic restructuring is so vague and simple as to let you fill in all the color until it truely becomes you.   And I think you have done an admirable job with that.    I think it would be an incredibly liberating option for you personally to get a divorce from it, and then find true love again with another, and then realize that all that you really loved was the colors from within.   Personally, I am only really about liberation.  All the fancy houses, gigantic penile monuments, gigantic penile crowning adventures, huge spurting yagyas and other phallic overkill I can perform myself, on a scale I can live with.   Maybe being a woman, you are attracted, however, to the grandious. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.