--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Or perhaps because chakras are grafted on after the vedic > > > stuff he DOES consider important? > > > Maharishi mentions marmas, and not chakras. > > > > In all fairness to MMY, I don't think he wanted to open > > a pandora's box with this more esoteric stuff, who knows, > > I may not be a meditator now if he did. He wants to broden > > his appeal not lessen it, afterall.....I don't hold it > > against him, although it would be reassuring if he did > > explain it from our (TM) point of view. :-) > > Haven't any of you guys considered the obvious? > He doesn't speak about chakras (and thousands > of other spiritual subjects) because he doesn't > know anything about them. > > If you want to know about such things, go to > the spiritual traditions that have studied them > for centuries. His obviously didn't.
Before anyone freaks out and considers this "anti-TM," it's not. I honestly think that 1) he doesn't discuss this particular subject (chakras) and many others (the mechanics of what happens between incarnations, how to transmit shakti, how to perceive auras, etc.) because he doesn't know anything about them, 2) that it is *fine* and *appropriate* that he doesn't know anything about them, and 3) that it's a *good idea* that he doesn't say anything about them. Why spread ignorance when so many people are going to listen to it and assume that it's knowledge? Maharishi grew up in a very conservative and mainstream Hindu tradition. They had a lot of things they were knowledgable about, and when he discusses those things, he is on safe ground and is doing his students a service to pass along what he might have learned. But to stray into areas that he never studied (because his tradition didn't study them or consider them important) would be a *disservice* to his students. If you think I'm wrong about this, try to remember when he *has* talked about other spir- itual traditions, like the times he's conveyed complete and total misinformation about Subud, about Scientology, and about Christianity. In every case, one or more of his students cornered him into talking about something he knew nothing about except some misinformation that he'd heard along the way, and he passed along that misinfor- mation as if it were true. In my opinion, when you know nothing about a subject, it's better to say nothing about it than to spout a buncha bullshit and *prove* that you know nothing about it. Some posters here, who feel compelled to act as if they know all about things they've never studied (the Google-it-for- five-minutes-and-pretend-you're-an-expert approach) would IMO do better to follow their teacher's example and just stay away from subjects they know nothing about. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
