--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he
> > > > said words became enlightenment through the
> > > > discrimination of the intellect, "when the
> > > > translucent intellect is as clear as the Self."
> > >
> > > But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom
> > > is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted
> > > is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of
> > > Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an
> > > important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la
> > > Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that
> > > system.
> >
> > Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this
> > instance about its being "final realization." He
> > was making a different point.
> 
> Final realization in the context of yoga-darshana in TM-jargon is  
> "CC" and the style of "final enlightenment" of yoga-darshana. 
> Viveka-khyati is not that, nor is it "enlightenment", it's a bhumi 
> (a stage). This is also why sutras such as the YS requires a 
> lineal realizer to explain it. This also is why it is not unusual
> to see TMer's express false views.

This is just a string of non sequiturs, Vaj.
Tom didn't say anything about "viveka-khyati"
either.

Nothing you've said has any relevance to what
Tom said or what I said. It's just your usual
attempt at misdirection to get in another slam
at MMY.

Plus which, I rather doubt you're a "lineal
realizer," so by your own criterion, you aren't
in a position to explain the Yoga Sutras.

> > In any case, you appear to be mistaken, given
> > that the term used in the sutra Tom was quoting
> > is "kaivalya," final liberation.
> >
> > > He has perpetuated this falsehood numerous times on this list,
> > > despite this fact being brought to his attention.
> >
> > Perhaps he simply didn't bother to point out
> > your error.
> 
> He's always welcome to try.

Translation: Ooops!


Reply via email to