--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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.
I see. The only possible reason that someone could read something and interpret it differently than you do is that they haven't read the context. Or, that they've read it "incorrectly." Or, that they have read it but they're "wrong," whereas you're "right." Or, that they *know* that they are "wrong" but are intentionally lying because they have malevolent intent towards Maharishi, TM, the TMO, or towards you personally. Have I covered all the bases of the ways in which you tend to respond to posts you don't agree with? Have you ever considered the possibility that someone could read the same things you do, and have read every word of them -- in context -- and come to a different conclusion than you do about what they have read? Have you ever considered the possibility that your opinion is just that -- Just Another Opinion -- and that it has no more relationship with "truth" than Jerry Falwell's opinion on what Christ said had to what Christ said? I read the whole thread, and the threads that preceded it in which these quotes were reposted. My *opinion* on what Maharishi said is that he is an individual to be pitied, just as one would have pitied Howard Hughes towards the end of his life. Whether his words indicate that Maharishi is enlightened or not is not a concern to me; I have never considered him enlightened, period. But his words do confirm *for me* what I've always felt about SV -- it's a "shut in" phen- onmenon, of value mainly to those who never (or rarely) leave their houses, and do so because they're essentially afraid *to* leave their houses. This is all just opinion, of course, as is *your* take on the situation. Maharishi may be enlightened, or not. It doesn't matter a damn to me. But I'm just thankful that I can leave my house without fear, and live anywhere I want without fear. Maharishi obviously cannot. If that's enlightenment, I don't want it.
