--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The common understanding of the 1000s of initiators made in the 60s > and 70s was that MMY was given the knowledge of TM from Guru Dev and > that the knowledge regarding mantras, selection of mantras, and > instruction in TM had been preserved orally by the Holy Tradition and > that is why we always do puja as part of instruction in TM. W/o going > into specifics, initiators know that prior to puja we tell the student > that the meditation they're about to learn comes from the gentleman > whose photo in on the puja table, and that photo isn't MMY's. > > It was only as time passed that people began to realize that guru dev > probably didn't do TM or teach it to MMY and that MMY probably made it > up himself (lots of theories on how and when) and then the concept > promoted in this thread that actually it's just the "realization" that > had been passed on by GD to MMY. > > I don't care that much about lineages as I don't really understand > them esoterically, but I agree that it's very odd that MMY has been so > vague as to where the specific practice TM came from. Why??
Apparently you haven't read the post reproducing the Larry Domash essay I referenced earlier today, or you wouldn't think it was "odd" at all. Here's the URL again: http://tinyurl.com/c3owb > Scientifically proven benefits may have been the main selling pt for > TM, but the tradition behind TM was clearly a secondary selling pt. > It's a specific pt in the prep. lecture to mention that prospective > students should take heart that this meditation comes from a 5,000 > yr. old tradition and it's beneficial effects well understood on > the basis of thousands of yrs of experience. That's true, but I was commenting on Vaj's assertion about "selling a technique using phrases such as 'the Holy Shankaracharya Order.'" It's hard to think of the very vague reference you cite as a "lineage" per se. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- 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/
