--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > <snip> > > > The explanation you are giving is more respectful of people's > > > common sense than Jerry Jarvis duplicitous "they could be the > > > names of Chinese spices for all we know." I guess it was the > > > fear of Christian backlash if they knew the meanings. > <snip> > > > > > Vaj has made reference to keeping the meaning of the mantra > > in mind while meditation or something along those lines. I > > think THAT is the interpretation of meditation that MMY was > > speaking against. > > That *Jerry Jarvis* was speaking against with the > "Chinese spices" comment, right? >
True, but Jerry jarvis got it from MMY and that was MMY's point, I believe: that mantras are not used for the sake of the semantic meaning. In fact, the current physiological theoyr about how TM works takes that into account as part of the theory. > In other words, he was saying that's the attitude > we should have toward the mantras in meditation, as > opposed to the assertion "For all I, Jerry Jarvis, > know..." which would indeed have been duplicitous. > Well, not an attitude, per se. In TM you don't take a neutral attitude, it is simply that from the instructions, the attitude doesn't apply... > I've heard TM teachers freely acknowledge that > Hindus associate the mantras with deities, while > pointing out that this is entirely irrelevant to > how they're used in TM. > Irrelevant is a good word here. Lawson
