--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" <richardnelson108@>
> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
> > You, on the other hand, have this buring desire to make him the devil, even
> > though you say you have "transcended" your TM practice.
> > Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
> >
>
>
> I believe Vaj's contributions here are more sincere than that. If you accept
> the premise that there really IS a tradition of knowledge of yoga, and if you
> believe that Maharishi has corrupted it, then it all makes sense why Vaj
> would care. It comes from taking the knowledge very seriously.
>
> When we were all earnest TM teachers in the centers, if we had heard some guy
> was skipping the puja and selling TM mantras we would be incensed to our
> bones. We would be motivated to expose the person as a fraud and we would
> consider it our duty for the sake of the innocent public who was getting
> ripped off according to our POV.
>
> I don't share a confidence in whatever traditions of yoga Vaj is into, but I
> at least give him credit for being really into it and experiencing something
> that was compelling enough for him to come to the conclusions he has about
> the problems with Maharishi as a teacher and the limitations of TM as a
> practice.
>
> I started thinking of posting something with the whole rap about the Ayur
> vedic doctor who Vaj said was unhappy with Maharishi and Richard said was
> still very much into him. Having had a front row seat for the contentious
> relationship between Maharishi and Triguna I find both POVs to be credible
> and non contradictory. Maharishi was a hard-ball guy but he had resources
> that these guys wanted. So depending on what day you spoke to Triguna you
> might get the perspective that he was furious that his services were being
> charged for in DC in contradiction to the Charaka Samhita. (Or maybe he was
> pissed because he didn't get a cut but only sold the medicines.) Or you
> might get a whole flowery speech about what a great guy Maharishi was and how
> wonderful it was that he was bringing Ayur Veda to the world. Same thing
> with Dr. Lad who was salty about Maharishi using his materials without
> recognition after he refused to participate with Maharishi's proprietary
> program.
>
> And then throw in a whole heap of Indian's tendency to piss and moan like
> drama queens about everything.
>
> So I don't get the impression that Richard is some one-dimentional TB, he
> seems sincere and has added a lot to this discussion from his experience.
> And I feel the same way about Vaj. Because you both care about these topics,
> it makes the discussions more interesting for me.
>
> Thanks Curtis for your comments.
As I ahve said, I am not a TB. I have left the movement 30 years ago because
of policies that I disagreed with, which were put in place by MMY. If I was a
TB, as Vaj likes to say I am, I would have stayed.
And I agree that if Vaj was coming from the place of trying to tell the "true"
story of MMY and saving us all from the perils of being in a cult, I would
appreciate that. But it seems to me that if anyone is the TB for anti TM, it
is him. He does not want to discuss or debate. He just wants to put down MMY
and anything that has to do with him. Not my position at all. For example, I
have read Judith's book and assuming she is telling the truth, then MMY had a
sleeze bucket side. I will be the first to admit it. Also, we all know how
controlling he could be about many things. So I am simply trying to present
the positive sides of the stories when Vaj brings up the negative.
He reminds of something that Deepak said to me.
He was talking about the TM-Ex people who used to carry protest signs outside
of courses going on in Washington, DC in the 80's.
He said "a fanatic will always be a fanatic. When they were in TM, they were
fanatics for it. Then when they left, they are fanatics against it."
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On May 27, 2011, at 10:24 AM, seventhray1 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for providing these sources
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One of the reasons I don't post it every time this topic comes up, is
> > > > because I assume most people who've done any objective examination of
> > > > Mahesh and his character are already familiar with it from years ago.
> > > >
> > > > Those who aren't familiar with it won't accept it anyway.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am familiar with the stories. But I am also familiar with two shanks
> > > -- personal audience with one, small group audience with another. An am
> > > somewhat familiar with the histories of some others. I am not sure that I
> > > would bet the farm on what these gentlemen said on any matter. I hardly
> > > think that coming from the mouth of a shank is irrefutable. And of
> > > course, what was said, in what context, and what was not reported that
> > > was also said. Lots of interesting stories.
> > >
> > I agree with Tart.
> > I met wth Swaroopanand privately and he had nothing but good things to say
> > about MMY and what he was doing in the world. Of course, he could have
> > just been saying it to be nice to me, but it makes you question what the
> > truth is.
> >
> > Vaj, quoting Swaroopanand as the the true source about MMY is like asking
> > the Republican Presidential Candidate to comment about the Democratic one
> > during the campaign (and vice versa). Everything is circumstantial.
> > Depending on who when, where and how the questions are asked, you may get
> > a different answer.
> >
> > But its like you said Vaj, people will only accept what they want to. You
> > clearly have your position on all this and nothing is going to change it.
> > And so do I.
> > The difference between us is that you claim I am a "drooling" TB. You know
> > nothing about me and you assume a lot.
> > I know MMY had his faults. But to me that is irrelevant.
> > What I always loved and respected about him was that he set up TM to be a
> > technique that was independent of him. So if he was a womanizer, a theif
> > or whatever, what does that have to do with me?
> > Nothing. I can enjoy TM, get the benefits as promised and really not give
> > two shits about MMY or his personal life.
> > You, on the other hand, have this buring desire to make him the devil, even
> > though you say you have "transcended" your TM practice.
> > Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
> >
>
