--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 9:56 PM, "johnt" <johnlasher20002000@...> wrote: > > > Then what is it saying. Be precise I value tradition in the sense that it > > preserves elements that are life supporting, it doesn't tell me how it > > works. That's what modern psychologists are only beginning to try and do > > do. Vedic masters were masters of what's now becoming NLP, however people > > just parroting what they heard doesn't show understanding. > > So how do you square the fact that Mahesh was not an actual student of SBS > and the fact that TM is a perversion of the purity of what Guru Dev taught? > How important could you value the Shank. tradition if you're supporting a > distortion and an nonlineal tradition? > > Or are you just ignoring it and "playing pretend"?
johnt didn't say anything about valuing "the Shank. tradition." It's Vaj who's "playing pretend" (he means "pretending"). In any case, as Vaj knows (or should know), MMY made a sharp distinction between "the Shank. tradition"--i.e., the "official," orthodox tradition of the Shankaracharya hierarchy, which he perceived to have become corrupted-- and what he believed to be the *real*, original knowledge tradition of Adi Shankaracharya. As to MMY not being "an actual student" of Guru Dev, there are more ways of learning from a teacher than being an officially designated student or disciple. And whether what MMY taught was a "perversion of the purity" of Guru Dev's teaching is a definitional issue. What MMY taught was different in some respects from what Guru Dev taught, but so were (and are) the people MMY taught. There's an excellent case to be made that MMY's teaching was an effective adaptation of the *core* of Guru Dev's teaching for a global audience, as opposed to Guru Dev's audience of devout Hindus. >From another of Vaj's posts: > We actually now know where the TM puja came from and what > sources the puja was hobbled [sic--he means "cobbled"] > together from. It's from a pundits poem that Mahesh was > told to throw away. Four lines thereof. > There's nothing magical about it at all - unless you believe > it is. But it does not come from a real lineal tradition, > it's something Mahesh made up. Whether it's "magical" is arguable. But if it isn't, it's not because MMY added four lines praising Guru Dev.
