--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > I agree, and have no problem with what Maharishi said > in the quote, merely with 1) the triteness of how he > said it
Well, actually, in his earlier post Barry did have a problem with the content of what MMY said: "It has zero level of profundity for me, but to her, it seems to be genuinely profound. She keeps bring- ing it up as if it's one of the most profound things she's ever heard." (As already noted, Barry's comments about me were entirely in error.) , and 2) the idea that he's saying this because > he perceives at that level. Irrelevant to my quotation of it. That's Barry's "idea," not mine. <snip> > I do find it amusing that the person who is first in > line to "bust" people here for being contradictory and > to claim that makes them unbelievable as sources of > information seems to hold as her favorite Maharishi > quote him contradicting himself big-time. :-) Not my "favorite Maharishi quote." As Barry knows, I've never had any problem with "knowledge is different in different states of consciousness"-type contradictions. As Barry also knows, what I "bust" him for are his waking-state contradictions (the ones he attempts to justify by claiming he changes constantly from one small self to another, or by invoking the "knowledge is different" premise as if his waking- state contradictions fell into that category). Perhaps he'll try one of those dodges to explain why he delivered a long rant last week claiming that I'm always the one who "starts it," then proceeded to attack me three or four times as soon as he was sure I wouldn't be back until the next week.
