Iranitea wrote: > Judy: > > "Shut up, Richard. I'm not disputing anything." > > She's just such a sweetie, isn't she? > > > (Yawn) But it's perfectly OK for > > Richard to accuse me of > > disputing facts and misleading folks when he knows I was > > doing no such thing. Right, iranitea? > > Yes you are misleading folks. Even though Richie got many > details wrong, or formulated them in a strange and freaky way, > (he is actually funny), he's got many of the fundamentals > absolutely right, while you seem to be in big denial there. Oh, really? In denial of what? Be specific, please.
> Your arguments, quoting collected papers, do nothing to > elucidate the origin of TM. That is, Richard, though not > being accurate, actually provides facts and important clues, > he provides INFORMATION, while you provide none of > that. Nor, as you know, was that my intention. My intention was to provide the account Maharishi apparently (per Rick) approved. And there was no "argument" involved, as you know; I wasn't disputing anything, as I said. I haven't a clue whether Swami Karpatri was a member of the Sri Vidya sect or not and couldn't care less. I wasn't responding to Richard's post, I was telling Seraphita about something I thought would interest her (and according to her, it did). Moreover, as you know, I was explicit that I was making no claims for the accuracy of Domash's account. I said, "Whether it's 100 percent accurate is anyone's guess." Like Barry, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between "Maharishi sez X" and "What Maharishi sez is true." > The other's here, who criticize him, do so, > because he provides infos THEY already know - but which are > not talked about officially. Who criticizes Richard on that basis? > To say, for example that he > doesn't provide any reliable information is just > misdirection on your part. As you know, that is not what I said. What I said was: "I wouldn't take Richard's posts to confirm anything." A lot of what he posts here (as you know) is *deliberately misleading* or *outright false* (such as his accusations against me that you are making an ass of yourself trying to defend). He may post some good information here from time to time, but given his trollish and deceptive habits, I don't take his word for anything. > And can you tell me: why doesn't the oh so > scholarly article of Domash, provide any of the fundamental > informations, that we are talking about here? Didn't he > know, or didn't he want to speak about this? Because to > say that the mantras are common place in India is not really > in the interest of the movement, right? I'm flattered you think I'm capable of reading Domash's mind of 40-some years ago. But really, all I can do is speculate: He was writing primarily for scientists (the intended readership of the Collected Papers volumes), so he may not have thought lore about the history and provenance of mantras or other "fundamental informations" (hint: "information" is always singular in English) discussed here was really very pertinent in that context. That the mantras are "common place in India" isn't much of a revelation, nor does it make any difference to how they're used in TM. Just in general, the purpose of the essay was not to address every negative criticism that's ever been made about TM, especially criticisms of its marketing approach (which is where the mantras being "common place in India" would come in). I did make the point to Seraphita, as you know, that Domash didn't exactly make clear Guru Dev's role in the formulation and teaching of TM, and that it seemed likely to me that he didn't have a thing to do with either, contrary to the TM "party line." Once again, iranitea, your compulsion to "get me" has blinded you to what I've actually said in my posts. Your rather desperate attempts to pour me into a True Believer mold just make you look foolish and weak.
