Thanks, Peter and Tom, for your answers. A few followup questions related to Tom's remarks:
> > Patrick Gillam writes: > > > If nothing changes in daily life, what's > > the point of pursuing enlightenment? > > > Is it merely that the daily mishegaas goes > > on, but one's response to it changes? > Tom Traynor clarifies: > > Bottom line is that stuff still happens but it > no longer sticks or really matters. It is kind of > like being Teflon coated, the same old > stuff hits the fan and you are untouched. So, it's not relative events that change, but one's reponse, as I phrased it above. There's no change in relative events? Do you, Tom or anyone, disregard the TM research that found changes in societal trends when we hit superradiance thresholds? You know -- stronger stock market, lower hospital admissions, lower crime rates, etc. I know some of that research has been disputed, but do you dismiss all of it? Or perceive no relative changes directly? > There is almost nothing > that can overcome the feeling of certainty that > things are as they are and have always been so. Which may explain why Byron Katie's work is so effective -- it's founded on a truth that some people perceive directly, without doing The Work: what is is fine. > Makes for an easy life in that you now see it for > what it is At the end of _Collision with the Infinite_, Suzanne Segal repeats the importance of seeing things as they really are, but never explains what they really are. This last comment of yours, Tom, reminds me of that admonition of Segal's, and explains why she couldn't explain it -- it has to be perceived directly. - Patrick Gillam 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/
