--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Robert Gimbel wrote: > > > -If one holds a specific meaning of a mantra, it seems to me, that one > > is not only holding a limiting value of meaning, but is getting caught > > on a superficial level, instead of transcending to the deeper levels > > of consciousness. > > More important than any specific meaning, is the ability to transcend > > using the sound, the vibration, of the mantra. > > The whole misunderstanding of meditation, I believe, is the notion, of > > getting caught up on meaning, rather than transcending all meaning and > > establishing consciousness, in that field which is transcendental to > > all meaning... > > In traditions which use mantra as a path, the initial part of the path > the mantra is used for "transcending". Later, in order to get the full > benefit of the mantra, it's meaning is investigated at different > levels. There is more to a mantra than it's translation into vaikhari > (vocalized speech). > > Transcendence is the beginning stage, meaning comes later.
So meaning trumps transcendence? 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/
