--- In [email protected], "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 9, 2005, at 11:24 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > Intention is intention is intention is... > > > > > > The fact that you don't see this speaks volumes, IMHO. > > > > Of course I see it, but I see it as disfunction, you probably > imagine > > this as 'purity of the tradition' or something similar. IMO this > is > > typical of conditioned thinking or the semantical programming of > the > > TMO: 'we're unique, we're effortless, etc.' It's mincing onions in > a > > desperate attempt to defend a positionless postion. The give away > is > > when people read vaguely different definitions into ordinary words > or > > phrases. Attempting to change the intention of the word "work" is > > typical. > > C'mon Vaj, in my case interpreting the word "work" in your post as > meaning effort was simply because that was the way I read it. No > intent to twist or massage meaning there. You posted a correction to > clarify the meaning of your statement and then I understood what > your original intent was. End of story, or maybe it's more like the > same story. >
"Intention" and "work" (as in accomplishing something) are both invalid ways of describing TM, unless you're talking about accomplishing "rest" which is an unusual way of using the term, in this context. 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/
