--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "zarzari_786" <hanumandaz@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" <richardnelson108@> > wrote: > > > > Hey Vaj, > > Just got sround to reading your post on this. > > > > I continue to amazed (I guess I shouldn't be at this point) about how > > egocentric you are. I mean there you are sitting in your ivory tower > > making your high and mighty statements about how much you know about > > transcending and everything else you talk about regarding buddhism, the > > hindu and shankaracharya tradition etc., and you really believe you know > > more about this stuff than Maharishi did. > > I don't know about Vaj, what he thinks about Maharishi is not necessarily my > opinion. Yet Maharishi himself called the transcendence in TM only 'hazy', > not final, what Vaj is saying is just the same from a different perspective. > It is also true, that TM, through the use of the mantra, is substituting > negative with positive samskaras, something alluded to in the Yogasutras. > Maharishi greatly simplified all the teachings. It's okay if you take it like > that, but it's also okay for some others to try looking a little further, and > see the whole thing in a larger context, alluding to the traditions from > which he drew. > > > > Listen, we all know that MMY was far from perfect, but yet he was respected > > and loved by some of the greatest saints of India including Lakshmanjoo, > > Ananda Moy MA and Muktananda and yet according to you he is a know nothing > > charlatan. > > Again, I do not necessarily share Vaj's judgement of Maharishi, but in the > vicinity of his disciples, usually these saints will make statements, that > encourage the bhakti to the guru. There are other statements, Muktananda > made, and other Gurus made, which are in fact more critical. So you can turn > it either way, you will get a balance.
For example, after Muktananda left Seelisberg, on the way out touching a few TMers, thereby giving them Shaktipath, so that they would follow him, is reported to have said: Everybody is talking about enlightenment there, but nobody knows what they are talking about. Then you forgot to mention Krishnamurti or Osho. Bottomline is: whatever so called enlightened say is not always in agreement with each other, they say it for various reasons, and it cannot be used like Hollywood namedropping. That all enlightened agree with Maharishi and say how great he is, is only a sweet illusion for TB's > > > > Maybe you can explain why they all seemed to be very happy with him? Oh > > wait, I forgot ...you never deal with any criticism. You just disappear > > for a while until you can jump in again all high and mighty with your > > superior knowledge to enlighten us. OK, I'll just wait for more pearls of > > wisdom coming oour way from you > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms > > > > > > with your analysis. > > > > > > > > > > Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the > > > > > stress release, "unstressing", model is factually correct. Each time > > > > > we "transcend" we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous > > > > > system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would > > > > > chose as you did. > > > > > > > > Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a > > > > situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical > > > > feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as > > > > "thoughts." This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of > > > > functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking > > > > about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less > > > > thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of > > > > functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and > > > > the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with > > > > each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to > > > > interfere with the communication between the front and back parts > > > > of the brain. > > > > > > The only problem with such theories is Lawson that TM is really only > > > an elementary practice of mantra meditation. From the POV of the > > > actual mantra tradition, the subtlest level of mantra in TM - the > > > point where one still has some abstract feeling of the mantra before > > > reaching what TMers believe is "the transcendent" - is 512 times more > > > gross than the subtlest level of mantra reached before the mind is > > > actually transcended - what is known as the unmana stage. In order to > > > even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the > > > piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of > > > practice. This level of subtlety simply does not exist in TM. > > > > > > So theories that are in effect based on iterations of the grossest > > > levels of mind are not really, ultimately, of much value except to > > > the indoctrinated TM crowd, and those they can still fool. As I've > > > said many times, you need to transcend the transcendent (what's > > > believed to be "transcendent" in TM) to even begin to approach the > > > actual full transcendence of mind. > > > > > > Once that level is attained, then some interesting research could be > > > done. However since the 'canon of awakening in TM' was effectively > > > frozen with the death of MMY, that point will never be reached. It's > > > also therefore a fact that all TM research can only ever be of minor > > > interest to serious consciousness researchers. > > > > > >
