--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:02 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Mar 4, 2007, at 8:45 AM, sparaig wrote: > >> > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> This could be #1 in a "Effort in Meditation FAQ". > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. > >>> > >>> Except, one need not have intent to do TM. > >> > >> Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. > >> > >> (Effort in Meditation FAQ #2?) > > > > Heh. You simply don't get it. > > Of course I do, you're just stuck in a dogmatic paradigm. > There's really nothing more to say
(At least, that Vaj knows about...) > other than take the advice of Dr. Pete and re-read > that till you "get it". > > Either that or find a Patanjali master who'd be willing > to explain it to you ! ;-) Because, goodness knows, Vaj is incapable of doing so. It isn't impossible that Lawson doesn't get what Peter is saying, but there's no question whatsoever that Vaj doesn't get what Lawson is saying. The difference between Lawson and Vaj is that Lawson is willing and able to explain himself so the issue can actually be *discussed*, whereas Vaj is neither, preferring to dispense his customary expressions of disdain while pretending to understand everything.
