Dear Jason, You understand me so well that I am going to ask you a favour: Would it be possible from now on for you, rather than for me, to answer posts that are addressed to me?
I think the nursery school classification of Aquinas most apt; for I recognized almost immediately upon reading the first 100 pages of The Summa Theologica that I was dumbing myself down by reading something this simplistic. Oh, one thing, Jason: I think of 'my philosophy' to be singular, based upon the widest experimental knowledge, and a close reading of the most important texts in the Western canon. I would have thought, before reading this ( which took the form of a real revelation for me) that the dubiety of my philosophy was based on its too extreme originality. The Monte Cassino paradigm is a complex one, Jason. That said, I do not retract my proposal to you: that you write my posts for me from now on. I shall give you two weeks to do this; after that time, I will simply apologize to the poster (who expected a reply from me) with the excuse that, after all, you are a busy man. But I certainly think you have caught me in your cross-hairs with this rather astonishing analysis and judgment of me. And for this, of course I am grateful. Go get 'em, Jason! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > > > > Is he trying to sell Maharishi or Aquinas? > > I squarely put the blame on Maharishi for all this. Each > man has to settle on a meditation technique that suits him > the best. Maharishi brainwashed a lot of people into this > wholesale one-size-fits-all approach. > > IMO, Maharishi did a lot of damage that way. But Robin > unlike others demoted himself back to nursery school. All > Robin had to do is move to some other technique that suited > him better. > > Robin seems to be more of a parrot unable to evolve his own > philosophy. This reflects badly only on Maharishi. IMO > Maharishi has failed him. > > On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:41 PM, zarzari_786 wrote: > > I had love for Maharishi, I had devotion and worked for him, I did what he, > or the movement told me at the time. And I think I can rightly say, you don't > need to teach me about intense bhakti. But what he is doing is romantizising, > that's different. Romantizising means to impose your own fancy ideas on a > lover, ideas that aren't true, ideas you will not care to validate. Love is > not just a feeling, you have to act upon it, if you have a Guru, you have to > see what the guru is actually saying, and not project something onto him. > Robin creates a world of his own. > > From: Vaj <vajradhatu@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:19 AM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi > Chivukula > > > > You really get it Z. You're asking (IMO) all the right questions and catching > the disconnects, you catch every one. Trust me, this is nothing new, the > paradoxical/contradicting speech has not changed a wink. The romanticism and > sentimentality as well. >
