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.
