Curtis, throughout this post, you've defended Vaj's
take on points I never disputed, and ignored the ones
I *did* dispute. I may disagree with some (not all) of
the points you've defended, but it wouldn't occur to me
to cite them as evidence that Vaj was never a TM teacher.
In your earlier post, you did acknowledge that some of
what I quoted seemed inaccurate as a description of TM
practice and instruction. But you've backed off that in
this post. And you haven't responded to my immediately
previous post in which I challenged a number of your
points.
I've snipped all your defenses of stuff I was not
challenging, because they're completely irrelevant.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...>
wrote:
>
<megasnip>
>
[quoting Vaj:]
> one is enjoined to maintain mindfulness (or smriti to use
> the actual technical term) both as the mantra first arises
> (waiting or "monitoring" for the mantra to "appear") and
> one must be mindful to return to the mantra--otherwise one
> would potentially end up never returning to the mantra,
> but remain distracted for the entire session!
Here he's describing what he purports to be the
instructions for TM ("enjoined").
(Not to mention that "remaining distracted for the entire
session"--as long as it never occurs to one that one is
not thinking the mantra--is 100 percent OK as far as
TM instruction is concerned.)
In your earlier post you said:
-----
[Me:]
> He's elaborated on this in a number of different posts
> in ways that make it crystal clear he believes TMers
> are instructed to "wait for the mantra"--that's at the
> beginning of meditation--and to monitor their meditation
> throughout, as well as quoting the checking notes way
> out of context in an attempt to justify the above.
[You:]
That sounds inaccurate, I agree.
-----
But here, you just quoted one of the very posts I was
referring to as if there was nothing wrong with it.
(The checking notes point that he quoted out of
context in a different post to justify the "waiting
for" notion was point #7, which I briefly discussed
earlier, noting that it was a reassurance rather than
an instruction.)
<megasnip>
> I don't doubt that this list of people have their reasons to
> doubt
Here I was responding to your argument that the folks
who doubt Vaj's teacher status are TBs who resent his
criticisms; and that they've all been influenced by my
allegedly "compelling personality" to adopt my view.
> but I just don't. It is so much easier for me to see him
> as a guy into TM who moved on, who is still fascinated
> with TM and Maharishi as I am for his own reasons now. It
> seems harder to construct the kind of person who would
> create such an elaborate presentation. And to what end?
> To make us all believe that he is into something better
> that we don't have access to? He comes off as much more
> normal and sincere than that to me.
I haven't taken a poll, so I don't know whether yours
is a minority viewpoint on his normality and sincerity.
But there are certainly quite a few folks who don't
agree, who find him incredibly overbearing and
patronizing (and often quite gratuitously insulting);
and then there are the many statements he's made that
have been documented to be either outright false or
seriously misleading (not talking about the current
issue you and I are discussing regarding the
instructions for TM).
Furthermore, a number of people here who have studied
one or another of the other systems he claims to have
extensive knowledge of have spoken up to insist he
doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to
these systems either. emptybill is the current example,
but there have been others; in some cases lurkers have
popped in for a post or two just to call him on some
of his errors.
I'm not in a position to say who's right in these
instances (and neither are you), but they do reinforce
the impression that he may not be quite who he claims
to be.
And finally, when he's challenged on something he's
said about TM, he almost never responds directly.
Instead, he makes snide remarks about the challenger,
spouting arcane Sanskrit or Tibetan terms and going
on about what sound like highly esoteric concepts
that he knows the challenger is unlikely to be
familiar with.
If he were truly personally acquainted with TM, he
ought to be able to address challenges from TMers in
terms they would understand. But he almost never does.
In fact, the few times he *has* appeared to attempt
to do that have included some of the very assertions
about how TM is practiced that I've been objecting to.
IOW, when he tries to speak about TM in TM's own terms,
he gets it all fouled up. Maybe that's why he does it
so rarely.
> > Anyway, finally, a post from me from December 2010, when
> > Vaj brought the same "waiting" issue up again; my post
> > quotes his extensively (you can track back to find
> > his original in response to a post from emptybill):
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/263765
>
> This reinforces my belief that you are missing his point.
You have not, so far, addressed his claim that TM
instruction tells you to "wait for the mantra" (the
point in question in the post of mine you're referring
to).
> And it can't be made without your interest in understanding
> it. You had already made up your mind that Vaj was an imposter
WRONG. I didn't think he understood TM very well, but
it wasn't until he started making these off-the-wall
assertions about the TM instructions that I began to
suspect he had never been a TM teacher.
> and are not making an attempt to connect how his words
> connect to your experience. You are looking for any
> discrepancy to make a case that he wasn't a real TM
> teacher.
I wasn't "looking" for such discrepancies, Curtis. As I
say, I hadn't been suspicious until he started making
these weird assertions about how TM is practiced that
were contrary to the very most basic principles of TM,
without which *TM isn't TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi*.
> You are deliberately ignoring his clarification of meaning
> to go back to specific words used in TM to attempt to make
> the distinction that they are not the exact ones used in TM
> instruction.
As I pointed out in one of the posts--which Vaj then
quoted to imply that *I* didn't know how to practice
TM--it's not just that the words "waiting for the mantra"
and "monitoring" one's meditation don't appear anywhere
in the TM intructions; it's that the concepts the words
refer to are contrary to how TM is taught and practiced--
the same concepts *you agreed* seemed inaccurate.
> You don't want him to be making a subtle point about
> meditation. You want him to be wrong.
He *is* wrong. You want him to be "right," so you're
ignoring his misstatements--
> We are talking about the subtly of inner experience here.
--not about "subtlety of inner experience" but about,
again, the very most basic principles of TM. You don't
"wait for" the mantra, and you don't "monitor" your
meditation, no matter what words you use to describe
those two notions, no matter how "subtle" your
experience. If you do, you're no longer practicing
TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
<snip>
> I don't expect this to be convincing for you Judy, but
> appreciate the invitation to have another look at some
> of the evidence that leads you to believe Vaj never was
> a teacher or maybe not even a TMer.
As noted, nothing he said that you commented on in
this post is what I've cited as evidence that he's
misrepresented his TM involvement. You've *ignored*
all of it and focused on things I've never cited in
that context.
Oh, yeah, and you haven't addressed the bit about
"checking the mantra" either. You asked for evidence
that he believes that's a routine part of checking,
and in my immediately previous post, I quoted the post
of Vaj in which he made that clear.
I have the feeling you may not have read that
immediately previous post from me and went instead
straight to my next post that gave you references
to the earlier threads. I'd suggest you go back to
the one before that, because some of the points I
made about what I was specifically objecting to
would have saved you a lot of typing in the post
I'm responding to now.
