--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 2006, at 1:48 PM, sparaig wrote: > > >>> Well, so this guy's description of Shamatha certainly doesn't sound > >>> like TM. Whose > >>> description of Shamatha does? > >>> > >> > >> If it sounded like it, it would be like it? Is that your reasoning? > >> > >> I still think you could have a future as a TM standup comedian. > >> > >> > > > > Perhaps. I note you avoid the question whenever I bring it up. > > > Not at all, you are just playing games as usual and Vaj knows that.
You are the one who made factual claims that you have refused to back up. Asking you to back upspecific claims is NOT playing games and "Vaj knows that." > > The problem is, you don't even seem to realize you're doing that. Er, yeah... > > I've gone on at length at various times to attempt to explain it to > you, but you were either not willing to do so or not capable of > leaving your mindset to understand it, and instead preferred > semantical games. Thus I do not make the same mistake twice of trying > to get you to expand your mindset to a bigger picture of the spectrum > of meditation. > You have already shohwn that you don't understand that TM is a continuum of practice from gross to subtle to near-objectless to objectless. Why should I take seriously someone who obviously does NOT get TM, and who refuses to back up factual claims and calls any attempt to get an honest and straightfoward answer out of you "game playing?" > Really, since the alt.tm diaspora it's been impossible to share > anything of any real depth in regards to meditation other than the > basics. Why cast pearls? > You don't even understand the basics, either of meditation OR of factual honesty.
