--- sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Mason" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > When I spent some time with Brahmachari Sattyanand > he gave me an > > advanced technique which involves paying attention > to the mantra in a > > particular location. Being in India, with an > Indian, in an Indian > > ashram, I asked him if he meant in the vicinity of > the so&so chakra, > > but he soon made it very clear he had no patience > for any mention of > > chakras and left it at that. He did not say why, > but I suspect it is > > for the very reasons that Turq gives, that it was > off his map (which > > is a very good reason not to embark on a > dissertation about them). > > > > Sounds to me like projection. I remember quite > explicitly the exact wording of my > advanced technique instruction (acting traing comes > in handy at times) and there wasn't > anything like "pay attention to the mantra in a > certain location." I can certainly see why, if > you were expecting something chakra-ish, you would > misremember what you were told, > but it is certainly not what I was told and I doubt > if you were told that either. It was thinking the mantra in a certain area of the body. It is one of the last advanced techniques. I can see why the term "chakra" was not used because chakra for most people is just a concept that could confuse things. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > <no_reply@> 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 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
