--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 18, 2006, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:35 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:30 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that what you call transcending is not the > same > > > as > > > > > > > > > what TMers call transcending. Given that TMers don't > > > report > > > > > > > > > transcending during TM until after-the-fact, this is > > > hardly > > > > > > > > > surprising... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It'd probably depend on what *style* of shamatha you > were > > > doing. > > > > > > > > For ex. there is a form of shamatha that traces the seed > > > > > > > > syllable back to it's source--silence--much like TM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TM *can* do this. Is this the goal of this style of > > > meditation, > > > > > > > or is it merely a description of an idealized outcome? > > > > > > > > > > > > It's just one of the styles of shamatha, that's all--the > > > beginning > > > > > > part. > > > > > > > > > > That wasn't the question. Lawson specified that it > > > > > was one of the styles. He's asking if what you > > > > > describe is (a) the *goal* of this style, or (b) > > > > > a potential outcome. > > > > > > > > > > In other words, is "tracing the seed syllable back to > > > > > its source" a PREscription, or a DEscription? > > > > > > > > > > > Don't get so stuck in your paradigm. > > > > > > > > > > Why are you so reluctant to answer the queston? It's > > > > > a pretty simple one. > > > > > > > > Plurium interrogationum. > > > > > > So prove me wrong, and answer it. > > > > And you were made the questioner for Lawson when? > > What on earth is your *problem*?? > > I'm my own questioner. I asked my own question. > > You won't answer either Lawson's original question > or my version of it, and your nonresponses have been > irrationally testy. Why should I not assume you're > reluctant to answer? Both questions were simple and > straightforward, yet you're going to amazing lengths > to avoid answering them. >
I suspect he knows that assigning a goal to a TM-like technique makes it a Buddha-enabler, rather than a Buddha-killer and he doesn't want to address the contradiction. 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/
