--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, no one cares what I think of TM except the kind person who > asked me about my experiences.
You have no way of knowing that, Curtis. > I was expressing my personal opinion. Of course. That's irrelevant. > The verb transcending, combines all the parts of the TM process that > Spraig was so quick to add, including the mechanics of stress > release theory. If I had used the phrase "the state of > transcendence", your point would have more merit. If you had used the phrase "the process of transcending," as I suggested you might have meant rather than "the experience of transcending," I wouldn't *have* a point. The distinction Lawson and I are pressing is between "experience" and "process." Lawson noted, quite correctly, that the *experience* of transcending (whether that refers simply to going to subtler levels of thought or the state of transcendence) is not of any more value than the experience of having thoughts, according to MMY. But in a group > of experienced meditators, my use was completely valid. *Especially* in a group of experienced meditators, your use of the term "experience of transcending" was *not* valid. Any TMers who don't have a lot of experience who may be lurking, moreover, could be seriously misled. Everyone > knew what I was talking about including you and Spraig. Sometimes the verb > "transcending" is used to describe the state of transcendent. But in > my discussion of my own experiences, I am not using it that way. I was > discussing my choice to drop the whole practice of TM with people > already familiar with the practice. Red herring. > The original quotes: > > "As far as transcending goes, I think that experience is also very > overrated as a valuable experience. " > > Get out your bubble diagrams here and follow along Judy and Spraig. > > And the next time I use the term: > > "How could so many people drop > the practice if transcending was all that?" > > Judy and Spraig, want to take my use out of context, to make it look > like I didn't memorize and get tested on the elementary point they > are bringing up. We weren't taking it out of context, Curtis. It *is* an elementary point, and your use of the term "experience" suggests that you didn't get it, whether you memorized and were tested on it or not. > So if you want to assert the position that the term "transcending" > is never used as a description of the whole meditation process, > please go ahead. I would enjoy that. "Transcending" is never used as a description of the whole meditation process, it's used as a description of the "inward stroke" of the meditation process, as well as of experience of the state of the transcendent. It is *not* used for the "outward stroke" because transcending is exactly the reverse of that. Neither Lawson nor I took your use of "transcending" to mean only the state of transcendence. That's a red herring, and you know it. > Now here is my explanation to Spraig > > Me: 'OK. I thought you were joking. Transcending is the cornorstone of > MMY's program. It is the single most important part of his teaching. > It is considered going to the home of all knowldedge and all the laws > of nature. It is going to the highest first. It is watering the root > so you can enjoy the fruit. It is pulling back the bow so you can let > the arrow of activity fly. It is the rest before activity. It is > capturing the fort so you can enjoy all the silver and gold mines. > > Come on Spraig help me out here. You are a sharp guy. What are you > talking about? MMY considers transcending "Valuable".' > > Notice my use of the phrases, "going to the home of all Knowledge", a > clear reference to the whole process. "Going to the highest first", " > Watering the root", "pulling back the bow", "capturing the fort". All > these examples that make it clear what I was talking about, the whole > process of TM. Did you guys sincerely miss all that? Or are you > trying to bust my balls because you can't accept that someone can > value this experience so differently? All a red herring, Curtis, and once again you refer to the *experience* rather than the *process* here at the end. If you're "valuing" the *experience*, that is simply not TM. If you had just said, "Oh, yeah, I should have used the term 'process' rather than 'experience,'" that would have been that. We all inadvertently goof on the terminology from time to time. The fact that you're going way around Robin Hood's barn to deny you used the wrong term suggests that either you still don't understand *why* it's the wrong term, or that you find it necessary to try to cover up the mistake. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/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/
