Rory 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. :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My disagreements with MMY's perspective on human consciousness has > nothing to do with emotions. I liked your recent post pointing out you were cutting slack to Thai beliefs that you weren't to TMers', and so on. I think you are on the right track with that line of inquiry. I also think you generally try to be open, and I respect that immensely. As I've said before, of the three pre-eminent TM "critics" here -- you, Barry, and Vaj -- to me you your intellect feels the most "transparent" -- FWIW. Rory wrote: > 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. Curtis wrote: > This is a Vedic sounding poopy pants argument. Claiming to perceive > "self-evident truth" reveals a lack of understanding of epistemology. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree here -- for me, the Self is self-evident, when the time/space is right for the intellect to surrender into the emptifulness and for the self to apperceive itself. Don't know much about epistemology, but I suspect it has a lack of understanding of the self :-) > 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. It wasn't intended as a demonization or as a negative personal putdown, Curtis; everyone has vasanas -- it is my own perception *based on my own memories* -- if it doesn't fit your worldview, well and good -- no harm, no foul! :-)
