--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> <snip> > > Now, if this tactics is terribly productive, I don't know, I > > just know that this particular body/mind organism called > > Maharishi was drawn to it, that is that the supreme Brahman > > wanted him to do so... > > Here we lost the ability to have a meaningful discussion. > The moment you postulate some sentient entity that you > call 'supreme Brahman' and suggest that it has desires > (wants) of its own, I lose interest. :-) Too bad, because you don't even read and cut the sentence short. Thats because of stereotyped thinking, its so easy to have those buttons pushed with you, and I'm kinda fed up and actually too lazy to translate something to you; a man of your intelligence could easily understand - if you just wanted. Once your buttons are pushed its like talking to a wall - not meaningful, but also not because of me.As I have nothing to sell, I don't care for one actually, why waste energy, end of story. Okay, for the sake of others who might just catch this little bit of dialoque: Here I am referring to the Brahman as the Absolute, and any of us, including Maharishi just being players, with the Absolute behind, animating everything. Nowhere I am saying that you have to imagine Brahman like a decission-making person - thats just your hook up, and I really don't care about it. My point is that our involvement into our own personality is illussionary. As long as you think that you are 'in charge', you surely have no witnessing, you just gather experiences for your own satisfaction. > > ...and that I > > in turn, at that time was drawn to this particular body-mind named > > Maharshi, which equally was just corresponding to my level of > > consciousness and understanding at that time. So, you see, I see > > this in a fairly imporsonal way, but this is of course my > > perspective now. > > Whatever floats your boat. Translation: I am not listening. > > Now just one more point of Maharishis teachings, as far as I > > remember them: He clearly stated that there is different > > knowledge for different states of consciousness, and that > > the knowledge of one state would be a lie at the next level > > (that it had to be forgotten at that level). I don't know > > why other people didn't here all this, maybe they were just > >not terribly interested in such teachings at the time. > > I think that most students were eager for 'pat answers' > and settled for them. They were aided in this by the > fact that Maharishi, unlike many teachers I've met, > did *not* go out of his way when he presented a set > of teachings, to follow them up with something like, > "Of course, all of this is bullshit except when seen > from one limited point of view." He'd imply that each > limited set of teachings was true, and the students > would glom onto it as universally true. The point is:as long as you still immerse yourself in analysing the past in the way you do it here, you are actually still involved in seeking. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
