--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 18, 2012, at 11:41 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 2012, at 11:30 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You misunderstand the essence of TM. THere is > > > > > > absolutely no *mandate* to return to the mantra. > > > > > > You only return to the mantra ***IF*** you notice > > > > > > that you are not thinking it. > > > > > > > > > > I believe this is a fundamental misunderstanding of TM > > > > > practice - and part and parcel of the > > > > > 'institutionalization of effortlessness', which is > > > > > really an inculcated fear of balanced attention. > > > > > > > > Sigh, teach your own technique to your friends, and not > > > > try to analyze TM, thanks for playing. > > > > > > I'm merely being a realist: if you're lost in distraction > > > (i.e. vyutthAna, the" outward stroke") then you're not > > > transcending. If you're not transcending, then you're > > > meditation is not transcendental. > > > > > > Therefore, you should not call it Transcendental Meditation. > > > > > > How 'bout "Lawson's Transcendental Meditation"? Outward Stroke > > > Meditation? ;-) > > > > The point of TM isn't to transcend. > > > > THe point of TM is to transcend and then to NOT-transcend. > > > > Again, you show a fundamental lack of understanding. > > Lawson, Vaj and I understand *What Maharishi Taught* > quite well. What you do not comprehend -- and I would > suggest that after all these many years of all this > much brainwashing you can *never* understand -- is > that we REJECT what Maharishi taught.
No, sorry, doesn't work, Barry. I appreciate that you're trying to save Vaj from himself, but this isn't the way to do it. At least not if people are reading what Vaj actually *says*: "I believe this is a fundamental misunderstanding of TM practice." > We think he was wrong. About what? Obviously, MMY could not have been wrong about how to do TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. That would be oxymoronic. But that's what Vaj claims. That's what you're trying very hard to cover up. You can say that Maharishi didn't know how to teach meditation until the cows come home, if you actually know how he taught meditation. You can't say "Maharishi didn't know how to teach Transcendental Meditation as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" without having people laugh at you. If you want to make a case for the former, go for it. You've done it before. But don't pretend that's what's at issue here, or you'll tar yourself with Vaj's brush. There's nothing you can do to make him *right*; all you can do is try to distract attention from his mistakes, as in "We think [MMY] was wrong" without specifying what he was wrong *about* (i.e., not about how to teach TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi). > You keep parroting what he taught you. Oh...wait... > what people he taught to parrot him taught you, as > if doing so would prove that *WE* are the ones who > "don't understand." "I believe this is a fundamental misunderstanding of TM practice," Vaj says to Lawson, referring to Lawson's "parroting" of what MMY taught. If Vaj doesn't recognize what Lawson said as being what MMY taught, then Vaj either does not know or has forgotten or never understood what MMY taught. <snip> > PLEASE stop doing the "Judy thang" and trying to imply > that because we DISAGREE with Maharishi we "never got it" > or "never understood." We understood just fine, thank you. Neither of us has been doing that. > What YOU don't understand is that we can do that and > disagree with him. Sure you can. But Vaj doesn't. > We think he's wrong. And again the incomplete "We think he's wrong." Barry *can't* complete it, because that would throw Vaj under the bus: "I believe this is a fundamental misunderstanding of TM practice." > THAT is what you either can't "get," or if you can, > are trying to denigrate by portraying us as having > "not understood." We understood fine. We think he > was wrong. "I believe this is a fundamental misunderstanding of TM practice." About what? <crickets>
