--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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. > > And trust us, Ron, this is the first time > Judy has ever felt this way.
Translation: Barry hasn't read the context either.
