--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:40 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. > > Actually not. The verse Tom quoted refers to viveka-khyati my dear.
Please review my previous posts, poopsie. The sutra Tom quoted refers to "kaivalya," final liberation. > > 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. > > No my dear, it's an attempt to clarify from an extremely > misleading statement. No, Vaj. No, it's not. Everything you've said in this thread has been an attempt to obfuscate.
