If you present your way as "better" that is your choice. But to insist that your way is really MMY's way is simply wrong.
L --- 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. > > We think he was wrong. > > 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 honestly think that we understand quite well, thank > you. I have probably taught TM to more TMers than you > have *met* TMers. I learned to parrot *What Maharishi > Taught* quite well. > > It's just that a certain point I discovered that what > he taught did not jibe with my personal experiences, > and with what I had heard from other teachers whom I > admired and respected much more than him. I think he > was WAY off the mark, to the disservice of his students. > > You are perfectly within your rights to disagree (never > having met him and all), and to hold him as some kind > of "authority" where meditation is concerned. I do not. > Neither does Vaj. > > 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. > > What YOU don't understand is that we can do that and > disagree with him. We think he's wrong. > > 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. >
