<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], new_morning_blank_slate
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >As I said before, whether you
> > > > accept it or not makes no difference to me.
> > >
> > > I rarely accept unprovable assertions as a priori true. Why
would
> > > anyone? But if you are going to post, its useful to define
your
> > terms.
>
> > >
> >
> > With regard to the supposed list of MMY's 18 correlates for CC,
you
> > have said yourself that there are many paths and many
> > peaks, 'championed' such a view, in your words.
>
> I believe I said that I have championed the view that "many peaks"
is
> a distinct possibility. But since many who claim enlightenement,
have
> no interest or pehaps ability to identify attributes of their
> enlightenement as they define it, validation of the above
hypotheses
> stalls a bit.
>
> > So what usefulness could it possibly have whether I in my
> > experience, tick off some or all of the supposed 18 attributes
of
> > CC, or not?
>
> Read above. It has a lot of usefulness and relevance.
>
> > To talk about myself with regard to such a list has,
> > imo, no value or usefulness whatsoever.
>
> Well, thats a POV. It rasies quesions on several levels as to why
that
> POV is comfortable for you.
>
> Personally, I think the terms and labels A and E have little
> value. However, I have made the simple request that if and when
> people feel such terms are useful in their posts, it would improve
> communicaions if they defined them. To indicate differences in how
> they use the terms compared to the MMY attributes. Otherwise, any
such
> posts are a hodgepodge of possible meanings and are next to
worthless,
> IMO.
>
> And the eleucidation of such attributes of ones enlightenment would
> assist in illuminating if the "many peaks" hypothesis is valid. But
> since many who claim enlightenement, have no interest or pehaps
> ability to identify attributes of their enlightenement as they
define
> it, validation of the above hypotheses stalls a bit.
>
> And to use the terms A and E without clarifying the attributes
meant,
> is a type of logical fallacy, if not slight of hand. Being a list
with
> strong TM roots, a starting point for many is to use MMY's
attributes
> to define enlightenment(s). If one is using E. or similar terms,
but
> meaning a state with different attributes than the MMY 18, its
honest
> and an act of integrity to clarify that.
>
I simply disagree with you, and see much of what you have written
above as invalid from my point of view. Sometimes I have had
fruitful exchanges with you, and sometimes not, c'est la vie, right?
If my lack of acceptance of your belief system, that one should
clarify their Enlightenment against a list of terms, or personally
adhere to a set of imposed criteria, causes you to doubt or deny my
Awakening, I am completely OK with that.
I will continue to comment on posts or write my own, just as we all
do. Based on that, you and others who care to read them, can reach
their own conclusions or not regarding my state of consciousness.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
