--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Ron" <sidha7001@> wrote: > <snip> > > Now, back to this response- I choose to leave it as it is- my > > Guru, Swami G, is aware of the connection of the mind and > > Realization, and speaking from this platform, as she claims, has > > made that comment. You may want to check what Ramana, considered > > one of the great one;s has to say about the relationship of mind > > with One in Realization. > > > > What the Guru says is one thing, the rest of the story is living > > what they said within one's own existence- this trims the gap > > between what they say is the goal and what one knows from their > > own consciousness as a result of the connection and alignment to > > the Guru and the path > > No, this is all still non sequitur in context. > Apparently you didn't read the context of Peter's > comment either.
Just to clarify: I got a real chuckle from your recommendation that I read Ramana to verify Swami G's comment, as if I were disputing what she said. "Non sequitur" doesn't mean "wrong," it means "This does not follow." It didn't have anything to do with what Peter said. It looks to me as though what happened was that Swami G glanced at Peter's comment without reading the context, saw an opportunity to put MMY down, and, of course, took it. > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Ron" <sidha7001@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I asked G to comment: > > > > > > > > Dr peter: > > > > Perhaps MMY is speaking about a condition of mind and > > > > not pure consciousness. > > > > > > > > G there is No conditioned mind in Pure Consciousness. If that > > > > were the case then there is simply an intellectual knowledge > > > > being paraded as Pure Consciousness. > > > > > > Complete non sequitur. She has no idea what Peter > > > is talking about. Did you not give her the context? > > > If you did, she obviously didn't bother to read it. >
