--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > Yes, exactly. Valuing "Hours long samadhi" is still just > > clinging to another experience... > > I don't care what you two clowns argue about > to defend your images of your selves as > enlightened. Not my interest.
No, your interest appears to be attacking something or somebody that only exists in your head. > But for the record, I only mentioned hours-long > experiences of samadhi to differentiate the > experience from the momentary second-long-or- > less flashes of thoughtlessness that most TMers > seem to have, based on having taught and checked > thousands of them. To get an idea of what > samadhi actually is, you probably need some > time to settle in to the experience, not just > a tiny flash. Who cares about any of that shit? It is of no lasting value; someone looking for more or longer samadhi is pathetic, just another addict looking for his fix. Anything to escape that nagging sense of futility and failure, eh? *lol* > That could be in the form of hours-long periods > of samadhi during meditation, which some forms > of meditation can produce, or it could be in the > form of samadhi present for long periods of time > simultaneous with activity, as in what Maharishi > used to call CC. At one point that was *his* > definition of what a transcendental experience > was. <snip> If it's an experience, it is not Real or True. If it can be defined, it is still not Dead enough to Be of any value.
