--- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <peterklutz@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Reading this post by Michael Dean Goodman:
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/131314
> > >
> > > ... it seems the assumed starting point is always mind's
> > > "thinking" level.
> > >
> > > Given the inward direction of TM-practice it would seem that
> > > clinging to an over-intellectual schematic approach might
> > > become a problem as thoughts becomes feelings, feelings
> > > settles down into sense of my-ness, then am-ness, and is-ness.
> > >
> > > What detailed commentaries has Maharishi offered on the
process
> > > below the "thinking" level of the mind.
> > >
> > > Vaj, TB and Paul Mason need not respond.
> >
> > Thanks for "exempting" me, Peter, but I want to
> > respond to your question anyway. I have no earthly
> > idea what Maharishi might have said about these
> > things, and I don't care. For some of us, meditation
> > is something we do because it enables us to stop
> > thinking and just sit quietly in samadhi. Others
> > seem to use it as something to think even more about.
> > Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
> >
>
> For a guy who claims to sit quietly in Samadhi your impact on the
> aural environment is quite degrading, especially considered that
(1)
> your participation is unsolicited; (2) you didn't have anything to
say
> in response except a big "I don't know" and (therefore?) "I don't
care".
>
Who needs to meditate to be in samadhi? It is naturally supported
during activity after meditating long enough...The fact that TB
needs to meditate in order to get there is a perfect indication of
his SOC: waking state.
