--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > "authfriend" says, " . . .because one isn't supposed to be able to > "understand" Advaita, given that it's so radically paradoxical And as > you say, it's so fulfilling that there's no need to look further. Or > rather, there isn't anywhere further to look.. . . I was able to see > it in MMY's teaching. In particular, there's a section in MMY's > "Science of Being" toward the beginning on prana and karma that I had > initially found utterly incomprehensible that suddenly became clear as > glass. . . . <snip> > > I say, "I think that the dogma of Advaita is understandable -- the > concepts are consistent and synergistic. What isn't understandable, > what can't be grasped is __________________. If you fill in the > blank, you don't grok Advaita, heh, heh! I don't think I've written > words to make others think that I can understand the Absolute, but for > sure I think I'm very clear about why I won't EVER be able to > understand.
Yup yup yup. Advaita says that no thought or emotional processing, no > experience, is the Absolute. So any reporting of the Absolute is by > inference only -- like trying to figure out what's inside a black hole > by seeing what's going on just outside of it. Yup yup yup. <snip> > As for the "Science of Being," I read that book before I started TM. <snip> > I haven't read it for decades now, and so I'm not up on it enough to say > if Maharishi presented those concepts with a clarity I have only found > in Advaitan works. No, he doesn't. Didn't mean to suggest that. What he says *became* clear to me after Advaita had fallen into place via other sources. I knew what he was talking about because I knew what he was talking about, in other words.
