--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 30, 2007, at 11:34 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > > <reavismarek@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Vaj, first of all, though Maharishi was snubbing > > > tradition in his willingness to leave the yamas > > > and niyamas of Patanjali out of his teachings and > > > techniques, it was that revolutionary aspect of his > > > teaching that brought even the idea of meditation > > > into the Western world and made it part of popular > > > Western culture. > > > > It's also inherent in MMY's insight about the > > technique itself. > > Insight? Oh puhleeze. > > > If transcendence is indeed > > effortless, > > You must have missed the previous conversations on how > "effortlessness" is defined in the Patanjali system.
You mean, your *interpretation* of same. In any case, what I'm talking about here is what MMY believes, not what you believe. If there is > support (Skt.: Alambana), there is effort. > > > it's easy to see how, as MMY claims, > > the steps on Patanjali's eight-fold path became > > reversed, with transcendence held to be the > > effect of mastery of the yamas and niyamas > > rather than the cause. > > Yes and maybe if we read the Lord's Prayer backwards > we'll find Jesus quicker. > > Jaundiced-eyed Judy reports: the world is yellow. Lame-o. > > If that insight about effortlessness, and the > > understanding of how to "teach" it, is lost, > > But it's clearly evident that it never was lost. Reams of > commentaries provide textual testimony that it was indeed never > "lost". Oral traditions agrees. It was lost in the implementation. > However, having reviewed the comments and finding their > conclusions experientially sound, Who having reviewed them? Your syntax is falling apart. it's clear Mahesh was either 'making it up as > he went along' or simply distorting tradition all along. I bet the > fact that he claimed he was restoring the purity of the tradition > actually fooled you. That's what he believes, and it makes sense to me, intellectually and experientially. > > then > > transcendence becomes *difficult*, and if it's > > difficult, practitioners need all the help they > > can get. This must be what mastery of the yamas > > and niyamas is for, goes the reasoning: to make > > it less difficult to transcend. > > > > Given his very different understanding, of course > > MMY would not have taught mastery of the yamas > > and niyamas as a prerequisite to samadhi, even to > > the most religiously devoted Hindu practitioners; > > it would have been counterproductive, in his view. > > He wasn't "snubbing" the yamas and niyamas, he was > > putting them in what he believed to be their proper > > context. > > If the prerequisites of samadhi are not met, even if you round a > thousand years, you will never attain samadhi. However, according to MMY, as you know, there are no "prerequisites" of samadhi, other than not exerting effort to attain it. > Given that we have no reliable scientific data on any TMer EVER > showing signs of samadhi Signs of samadhi *as defined by Vaj*. Note that Vaj failed to address any of my points. (ability to enter for desired length of > time, increased pain threshold, high-amplitude coherence, etc.) > Mahesh's distortion of tradition could be the cause. In fact, that's > what some researchers are claiming. >
