--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > I believe they honestly can't; it appears that the residual > > > > "vasanas" or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained > > > > as to belie any possibility of integrity in those areas. > > > > > > > > It is much like trying to show someone the obvious Perfection > > > > of what is: They believe they are thinking/seeing in "straight > > > > lines," but their interior space appears to be automatically > > > > curved into pre-set denial patterns, so that their thoughts > > > > automatically "warp off" to either side to avoid perceiving > > > > the self-evident Truth directly in front of them. :-) > > > > > > My disagreements with MMY's perspective on human consciousness > > > has nothing to do with emotions. > > > > > > > it appears that the residual "vasanas" > > > > or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained as to > > > > belie any possibility of integrity in those areas. > > > > > > This is a Vedic sounding poopy pants argument. Claiming to > > > perceive "self-evident truth" reveals a lack of understanding > > > of epistemology. > > > > > > I don't portray your perspective as being the result of some > > > psychological flaw Rory. I give you credit for having good > > > reasons for believing the things that you do based on your > > > experiences and your conclusions. There is a way to disagree > > > with a person's POV without demonizing the person personally > > > as having a psychological flaw or denial patterns. And a > > > smiley face at the end of a negative personal putdown doesn't > > > make it positive. > > > > Have you also noticed that none of these folks who > > are rushing to "pile on" has ever mentioned the > > thing that they're really angry about? > > > > They're pursuing Judy's distraction because the real > > topic that's pushed their buttons is SV "prosperity > > fences" and the belief that building one can make > > you prosperous. > > > > No one wants to get into that. If they did they'd > > have to come up with reasons *why* they believe that > > fences around an arbitrary property line generate > > beneficial woo woo rays. And I think we all know that > > the answer to that question is, "Because Maharishi > > said so." So they attack instead. > > > > Is there anyone out there who *does* believe in the > > efficacy of SV fences who has the balls to speak up > > and say *why* you believe that? Even if it's just, > > "Maharishi sez." > > > > That's a good reason, if you believe that what > > Maharishi sez is true. In my book, saying that is > > cool...you can believe whatever you want. But when > > you have to resort to ad hominem *rather* than saying > > that you believe that things are true because Maharishi > > said they are true, I think that conveys a different > > message than the one you think you're sending. > > > Dude, regarding my remarks, if I believed in SV fences I'd have one. > I don't. Nuf said. I am 100% certain Rory doesn't have one either. > > PS Curtis if you can see what has been said in the context of > vasanas, it will begin to make sense to you. With all the epissed- > timo-illogical talk, you obscure what is plainly there.:-) > > :-)
But he can't make sense of it, can he Jimbo, since, as you keep reminding us in every post, you're enlightened and he's not. But you say you're not "attached" to the idea of enlightenment. That's good. But then you keep reminding us that you are.....I mean what's a mother to do? :-)
