--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Much of what he [Vaj] says in that regard > > > > is incorrect. > > > > > > Like what? Vaj often expresses his *theories* of why > > > Maharishi acts as he does, but in my experience he > > > usually makes it clear that's all they are, his ideas, > > > his theories. What makes them any less "correct" than > > > yours? You'll have to give a concrete example of what > > > you consider "incorrect" before I'll believe that > > > you're doing anything more than reacting out of a > > > continuing attachment/loyalty to Maharishi. > > > > This is exactly what I am talking about-- Message 125394: "Of > > course TM...would certainly be considered a false path on a > > number of grounds." This is not expressed as a theory, and > > this is plainly incorrect. > > It plainly is NOT. I have encountered quite a few > teachers from other traditions that would (and have) > considered TM a false path. So has Vaj. Therefore > what he said is absolutely correct. I can think of > half a dozen traditions that would consider TM a > false path for no other reason than because the TMO > charges money for it. That is their right. > > YOU don't agree with it, so you're characterizing > what he said as "incorrect." It is not. You just > don't like it. > > <snip to> > > > Again, everything is as it should be, until > > > someone gets uptight about the fact that others don't > > > believe the same things he/she does. > > > > Why bring this last thing up? I don't think it applies to > > either of us. > > It certainly applies to you. You did it just above. > You took a statement of Vaj's that is clearly literally > correct and claimed that it was "incorrect" because you > don't agree with it. Many people do agree with it. What > makes those who agree with his statement "incorrect" > and those who agree with your view "correct?" > Experience. Only experience. The reason I said that TM is not a false path is because I have done it for 30+ plus years and it worked/works for me. I don't consider myself as special in any way, ergo it must be a path that works for others, ergo, it isn't a false path.
The validity of a path to me is dependent on whether or not it works, not whether some group proclaims that it is false, or whether it charges money for its practice. Whether or not it works means does it do what it is supposed to, which in the case of TM means 1)eliminate suffering and 2) create world peace. In both cases it does this. Now, to address the techniques of Tibetan Buddhism, they may do the first thing, but they clearly have no environmental effect whatsoever. Otherwise the country of Tibet maintaining the tradition would not have been destroyed. So I proclaim Tibetan Buddhism as a false path. Oh, also Thai Buddhism a false path, because I read about a monk several weeks ago mutilating himself because he had achieved an erection.
