--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 15, 2005, at 10:12 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > Look at what Peter wrote again. He said explicitly > > he is not talking about the "morphogenetic field" > > notion when he said the crap about lineages is absurd. > > Why would I need to look at it again when I know from my own > experience how important it is? Why would I want to separate them?
Non sequitur. You were defending the importance of the "morphogenetic field" as if Peter had dismissed it, when he had not. Hence my suggestion that you reread what he wrote. > It's also helpful in other ways. For example one may find other > students of your teachers original teacher and decide to hang with > them and see how the current of transmission developed there. Or > experience other aspects of the teaching. Personally I would not > ignore the interrelatedness, because it really seems that's how > things are. It even can be important on a material level. The discussion, Vaj, was about the notion that it was *essential* for a teaching to have a traceable lineage; TM was being criticized for not having one. Hence Peter's comment that he thought the insistence on a lineage was absurd. That's the point of disagreement, not the "morphogenetic" issue. I haven't seen anyone disagree with that. <snip> > Now where you have someone selling a technique using phrases such > as "the Holy Shankaracharya Order" to bolster image and name brand > and price--yes, then we might agree, there is a downside to > spiritual materialistic aspects of line (which the TMO and it's CEO > so admirably embody). Uh-huh. Except I don't believe TM is sold using such phrases. Guru Dev is mentioned in the intro lecture, and the fact that the puja is addressed to the masters of the Holy Tradition is mentioned, but neither is used as a selling point. > In many ways the TMO epitomizes Spiritual > Materialism--at > least in the sense Chogyam Trungpa originally coined the phrase. > > If it's not important to you and Dr. Pete, that's fine too. What's not important to me and Dr. Pete is the idea that a teaching must have a traceable lineage. It may perhaps be useful in some circumstances, but as Peter said, to validate or invalidate it by that criterion is just silly. That would mean no new teaching could ever be considered valid. And it's just plain *ridiculous* to demand that MMY specify the transmission details of the technique itself, given his claim to have revived it after it had been lost for many centuries. In effect, especially given that it's an oral teaching, TM is brand new. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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 <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
