Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:47 PM, wgm4u wrote: Lyou said that was your 'old' Guru, is MMY your old guru?, sorry if I misunderstood??. Though I understand the idea of CC being not the final or ultimate state of realization, I certainly wouldn't describe it as 'glorified ignorance' though that might be an accurate statement, it is in very poor tasteha, ah! Such bigoted statements are typical of an Advaita Vedantins in the Shankara tradition's view of yoga-darshana. Every other path is viewed as less than brahman consciousness. In that regards, Shankara was the first in this tack of Vedic supremacism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:47 PM, wgm4u wrote: Lyou said that was your 'old' Guru, is MMY your old guru?, sorry if I misunderstood??. Though I understand the idea of CC being not the final or ultimate state of realization, I certainly wouldn't describe it as 'glorified ignorance' though that might be an accurate statement, it is in very poor tasteha, ah! Such bigoted statements are typical of an Advaita Vedantins in the Shankara tradition's view of yoga-darshana. Every other path is viewed as less than brahman consciousness. In that regards, Shankara was the first in this tack of Vedic supremacism. Only a bigot could describe the statement that CC was glorified ignorance as bigoted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
Glorified Ignorance is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's alternate term for Cosmic Consciousness. And I referred to him as my old guru in reddit.com because 1) trying to be precise about MMY's relationship (or lack thereof) with me would detract from what I was try to say and 2) it's close enough for government work. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u no_reply@... wrote: [...] Since you don't even understand MMY's comment about CC being glorified ignorance, I'm not surprised you empathize with him. L. Lyou said that was your 'old' Guru, is MMY your old guru?, sorry if I misunderstood??. Though I understand the idea of CC being not the final or ultimate state of realization, I certainly wouldn't describe it as 'glorified ignorance' though that might be an accurate statement, it is in very poor tasteha, ah!
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:47 PM, wgm4u wrote: Lyou said that was your 'old' Guru, is MMY your old guru?, sorry if I misunderstood??. Though I understand the idea of CC being not the final or ultimate state of realization, I certainly wouldn't describe it as 'glorified ignorance' though that might be an accurate statement, it is in very poor tasteha, ah! Such bigoted statements are typical of an Advaita Vedantins in the Shankara tradition's view of yoga-darshana. Every other path is viewed as less than brahman consciousness. In that regards, Shankara was the first in this tack of Vedic supremacism. CC is ignorance simply because it was an infinite divide between Self and not-self. MMY sometimes called it merely normal. A Jivan-mukti might merely be in fully mature CC, at least in theory. They wouldn't reincarnate because there was no thing to incarnate, but they hadn't appreciated that Self is all that Is, whether inside or outside'... L
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
Vaj, Have you done the necessary work to have clarity about Advaita such that you can definitively say that it lacks the axiomatic depth of your form of Buddhism? It took me three years of reading about Advaita before I really thought I had intellectual grasp of its most subtle constructs. I'm relative-to-you stupid so I can't say how much scholarship YOU would have to do, but Advaita is not a read-it-once-and-now-you-got-it kind of thingie. Do you personally see a distinction between The Absolute, and The Witness and Pure Being and The Void and Ultimate State? To me, any form of identification -- as a process of a nervous system -- is an act of UNenlightenment if there seems to be a someone who takes credit for the manifestation. Which Hindu God has your brand of final enlightenment? Even Vishnu sleeping had a dream ego maybeor? Seems to me that ANY manifestation is an illusion and even the act of defining an illusion as illusory needs an ego to do the concluding. Even omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence seem claustrophobic dynamics. You? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:47 PM, wgm4u wrote: Lyou said that was your 'old' Guru, is MMY your old guru?, sorry if I misunderstood??. Though I understand the idea of CC being not the final or ultimate state of realization, I certainly wouldn't describe it as 'glorified ignorance' though that might be an accurate statement, it is in very poor tasteha, ah! Such bigoted statements are typical of an Advaita Vedantins in the Shankara tradition's view of yoga-darshana. Every other path is viewed as less than brahman consciousness. In that regards, Shankara was the first in this tack of Vedic supremacism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/s2dza/a_question_about_meditation_and_dissociation/c4ao4ku Sometimes I wax too poetic in too long-winded a way, but I'm proud of this one. Feel free to flame in the original thread if you like. L First of all there is a 'fatal flaw' in your hypothesis: Lawson says: During meditation, this normal mode of functioning is a state of complete quiet: no thoughts, no sensory perception, no objects of attention of any kind. One isn't even aware of being aware. It is Pure Consciousness --Pure Awareness --Pure Being --One Without a Second --etc. It is also called turiya (the Fourth state) or Samadhi (sameness). Lawson, if you're not even aware of being aware, how can it be *pure* awareness? Pure awareness is WHAT YOU ARE, Everybody's inner being is pure happiness, remember that from the 7 steps? Your ARE pure happiness which IS awareness (chit), if you haven't experienced pure happiness during TM, *YOU HAVE NOT TRANSCENDED*, period! (hint, Sat-Chit-Ananda) Glorified ignorance?, good thing you left That 'guru'. CC would hardly be described as glorified ignorance, unless you can describe self-realization as such, (pathetic). It should be noted that it is the 'contact' (with Brahman) that is infinite joy... MMY Gita VIvs28 You're dilemma may be that you don't understand degrees of bliss; awareness of the self AS bliss begins in CC, embraces the entire creation in GC and beyond even that, in UC, FWIW. During meditation, Pure Awareness is impossible to describe or even remember. MMY asserts that one starts to appreciate its qualities more and more, but this is *outside of* the episode of Pure Awareness: some mixture of PC and waking state, which is the normal condition for most people during TM and what starts to be lived more and more as someone matures in CC. To use an analogy of MMY's: Saccharine isn't sweet by itself. You need to mix it with something to notice the sweet quality. Another aphorism of his: 'Bliss' isn't blissful. [note capitalization or lack thereof]. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
Duveyoung: Vaj Have you done the necessary work to have clarity about Advaita such that you can definitively say that it lacks the axiomatic depth of your form of Buddhism? Traditional Advaita, as taught by the Adi Shankaracharya, has sadhana requirements. Not everyone will be accepted into the Saraswati Order. Most people won't have access to the initiation performed for the Sannyasin of the Saraswati tradition. However, many of the works of Shankara, are simply just restatements of the 'Consciousness Only' (vijnanavada) in Buddhism and Kashmere Saivism. Example: Excerpt from Mandukya Karika IV by Gaudapada: Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and object is within conciousness. (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246. Excerpt from Mahayana Sutra Lankara by Asanga Maitreyanatha: Pure conciousness is the only Reality. By its nature, it is Self-luminous. (XIII, 13). Thus shaking off duality, he directly percieves the Absolute which is the unity underlying phenomena (dharmadatu). (VI, 7) Sharma, p. 112-113
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
On Apr 11, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Duveyoung wrote: Have you done the necessary work to have clarity about Advaita such that you can definitively say that it lacks the axiomatic depth of your form of Buddhism? It took me three years of reading about Advaita before I really thought I had intellectual grasp of its most subtle constructs. I'm relative-to-you stupid so I can't say how much scholarship YOU would have to do, but Advaita is not a read-it-once-and-now-you-got-it kind of thingie. I see the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara as largely a Vedic purist reaction to the teaching of Nagarjuna, the Buddhist polymath and tantric master. But even Shankara realized that the average person on the street would need an approach of some kind to the Advaita nondual View. Most people just do not have the clarity and the discrimination to grok the various levels of nondual Vedantic contemplation, let alone to realize them. Samadhi is one such path, but it's not without it's own pitfalls. Do you personally see a distinction between The Absolute, and The Witness and Pure Being and The Void and Ultimate State? I don't practice Advaita Vedanta, so I'd rely on teachers of mine who had experiential and textual knowledge of the Shankara path. From my POV, it's important to remember that lower vehicles or approaches to Advaita Vedanta are seen as inferior from the POV of Advaita Vedanta, thus Shankara's commentary on the Brahma sutras disses all other vehicles, from that POV. MMY carries the same Shankara's Advaita Vedanta is the bestest POV throughout all of his teachings. This is also why some sects of yogis consider Shankara a demon, because he dissed their paths as inferior - some actually becoming extinct. To me, any form of identification -- as a process of a nervous system -- is an act of UNenlightenment if there seems to be a someone who takes credit for the manifestation. Which Hindu God has your brand of final enlightenment? Even Vishnu sleeping had a dream ego maybeor? From the POV of buddha-dharma, there is no complete enlightenment outside of the buddha-dharma. And as a good Advaita Vedantin can tell you, even nirvikalpa-samadhi is not enlightenment, it's merely non- discursive awareness in the form of a vritti of buddhi fixed on self- nature, free of superimposition. Even Brahman is typically not Brahman, but a vritti of Brahman. So merely attaining these states does not mean you attain the stage. Seems to me that ANY manifestation is an illusion and even the act of defining an illusion as illusory needs an ego to do the concluding. Even omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence seem claustrophobic dynamics. From the POV of a Buddha, certain powers are believed to hone the skillfulness of their compassionate action.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
Doesn't this all boil down to: 1) It's all subjective (i.e. perceptions) - distinction of subject and object is withinconciousness. 2) It's all One - ...the Absolute which is the unity underlying phenomena... From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 8:29 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think Duveyoung: Vaj Have you done the necessary work to have clarity about Advaita such that you can definitively say that it lacks the axiomatic depth of your form of Buddhism? Traditional Advaita, as taught by the Adi Shankaracharya, has sadhana requirements. Not everyone will be accepted into the Saraswati Order. Most people won't have access to the initiation performed for the Sannyasin of the Saraswati tradition. However, many of the works of Shankara, are simply just restatements of the 'Consciousness Only' (vijnanavada) in Buddhism and Kashmere Saivism. Example: Excerpt from Mandukya Karika IV by Gaudapada: Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and object is within conciousness. (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246. Excerpt from Mahayana Sutra Lankara by Asanga Maitreyanatha: Pure conciousness is the only Reality. By its nature, it is Self-luminous. (XIII, 13). Thus shaking off duality, he directly percieves the Absolute which is the unity underlying phenomena (dharmadatu). (VI, 7) Sharma, p. 112-113
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
An interesting thing about Shankara's take on the average joe on the street: MMY's assertion is that householders should use bija mantras isntead of OM. Many people claim that this is a no-no, but it is, in fact, exactly what Shankara said when you take it in the context of the Yoga Sutras' discussion of ishta-devata. In fact, MMY almost quotes that part of the Yoga Sutras in his exposition on TM in the publication that people use to prove that TM mantras are the names of Hindu gods. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 11, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Duveyoung wrote: Have you done the necessary work to have clarity about Advaita such that you can definitively say that it lacks the axiomatic depth of your form of Buddhism? It took me three years of reading about Advaita before I really thought I had intellectual grasp of its most subtle constructs. I'm relative-to-you stupid so I can't say how much scholarship YOU would have to do, but Advaita is not a read-it-once-and-now-you-got-it kind of thingie. I see the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara as largely a Vedic purist reaction to the teaching of Nagarjuna, the Buddhist polymath and tantric master. But even Shankara realized that the average person on the street would need an approach of some kind to the Advaita nondual View. Most people just do not have the clarity and the discrimination to grok the various levels of nondual Vedantic contemplation, let alone to realize them. Samadhi is one such path, but it's not without it's own pitfalls. l.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 11, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Duveyoung wrote: Have you done the necessary work to have clarity about Advaita such that you can definitively say that it lacks the axiomatic depth of your form of Buddhism? It took me three years of reading about Advaita before I really thought I had intellectual grasp of its most subtle constructs. I'm relative-to-you stupid so I can't say how much scholarship YOU would have to do, but Advaita is not a read-it-once-and-now-you-got-it kind of thingie. I see the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara as largely a Vedic purist reaction to the teaching of Nagarjuna, the Buddhist polymath and tantric master. I'm chiming in just to say that Vaj's statement here should potentially be no more inflammatory than...uh ...history. This fact is pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Hindu scholars. Shankara was that generation's Nabby. Really. Shankara's scholarship or spiritual point of view exists it today's thought pretty much only because it first came into existence in opposition to a contrary POV, one that happened to be cutting into the coffers of Hindu priests. That is, that one did not need the priests to realize enlightenment, or even happiness. Call me superficial, but my take on Shankara forty years after first having read him is that 1) the dude had the pitbull one-pointedness to 'get' those who disagreed with him of one of our prolific posters here on FFL, and 2) he had the True Believerism of another. No names mentioned, because no names need to be mentioned.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Doesn't this all boil down to: 1) It's all subjective (i.e. perceptions) - distinction of subject and object is withinconciousness. 2) It's all One - ...the Absolute which is the unity underlying phenomena... Yes on 1. No on 2. You have to have seen The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension to get this, and if you do, to laugh. :-) #1 does not necessarily follow from #2. Pretty much the entire history of spiritual thought has been based on the belief that it does.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Doesn't this all boil down to: 1) It's all subjective (i.e. perceptions) - distinction of subject and object is withinconciousness. 2) It's all One - ...the Absolute which is the unity underlying phenomena... Yes on 1. No on 2. You have to have seen The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension to get this, and if you do, to laugh. :-) #1 does not necessarily follow from #2. Pretty much the entire history of spiritual thought has been based on the belief that it does. Is that yes on its all subjective and no on its all one or...? Seriously, insomuch as both can be intellectual things instead of direct observations, neither necessarily follows the other. OTOH, I think that getting one is identical to getting the other. Pun not intended, but appropriate, I think... ...or not L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
On Apr 11, 2012, at 12:01 PM, sparaig wrote: An interesting thing about Shankara's take on the average joe on the street: MMY's assertion is that householders should use bija mantras isntead of OM. Many people claim that this is a no-no, but it is, in fact, exactly what Shankara said when you take it in the context of the Yoga Sutras' discussion of ishta-devata. Since the yoga-sutras are not a mantra-yoga treatise, that's not very helpful, even if Shankara allegedly said that. The yoga-sutras present a form of concentrative meditation, not mantra-yoga. It's now understood that Mahesh's fear of Om is based on something SBS said to one female student.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 11, 2012, at 12:01 PM, sparaig wrote: An interesting thing about Shankara's take on the average joe on the street: MMY's assertion is that householders should use bija mantras isntead of OM. Many people claim that this is a no-no, but it is, in fact, exactly what Shankara said when you take it in the context of the Yoga Sutras' discussion of ishta-devata. Since the yoga-sutras are not a mantra-yoga treatise, that's not very helpful, even if Shankara allegedly said that. The yoga-sutras present a form of concentrative meditation, not mantra-yoga. It's now understood that Mahesh's fear of Om is based on something SBS said to one female student. I don't know what you mean. I said that MMY's exposition about mantras was perfectly in-line with Shankara's discussion of what the common joe should do, when taking what Shankara said and putting it in the context of the Yoga Sutras. Here's a bit of help for you: Consider what Shankara said about the common joe. Consider what the Yoga Sutras said about mantras. Combine. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
I see the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara as largely a Vedic purist reaction to the teaching of Nagarjuna, the Buddhist polymath and tantric master. turquoiseb: I'm chiming in just to say that Vaj's statement here should potentially be no more inflammatory than... You're not even making any sense today! Ken Wilber is in agreement with the Vijnana doctrine propounded by Vasubandhu - Wilber believes that reality is ultimately a non-dual union of emptiness and form, with form being innately subject to development over time. All of Wilber's AQAL categories quadrants, lines, levels, states, and types relate to relative truth in the two truths doctrine of Buddhism, to which he subscribes. According to Wilber, none of these relative levels are true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness, the simple feeling of being, exists absolutely. Read more: 'The Spectrum of Consciousness' By Ken Wilber Quest Books, 1993
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/s2dza/a_question_about_meditation_and_dissociation/c4ao4ku Sometimes I wax too poetic in too long-winded a way, but I'm proud of this one. Feel free to flame in the original thread if you like. Nicely done, Lawson.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/s2dza/a_question_about_meditation_and_dissociation/c4ao4ku Sometimes I wax too poetic in too long-winded a way, but I'm proud of this one. Feel free to flame in the original thread if you like. Nicely done, Lawson. Thanks. reddit.comk is fun though the reddit/com/r/meditation moderators are decidedly anti-TM, or so the fact that any mention I make of TM or a link to TM in a top postingnever makes it to the home screen, suggests that they've got me blocked in some way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/s2dza/a_question_about_meditation_and_dissociation/c4ao4ku Sometimes I wax too poetic in too long-winded a way, but I'm proud of this one. Feel free to flame in the original thread if you like. Nicely done, Lawson. Thanks. reddit.comk is fun though the reddit/com/r/meditation moderators are decidedly anti-TM, or so the fact that any mention I make of TM or a link to TM in a top postingnever makes it to the home screen, suggests that they've got me blocked in some way. Well that's creepy. Is Reddit so prejudice against TM and threatened by it that they automatically send you to the back of the bus? I noticed you didn't mention your old guru's name. Hmmm. Come to think of it, there are a few would be censors on FFLife who go into attack mode merely mentioning Maharishi's name, especially if you have something nice to say about him. They'd like to shut you up as well. Anyway, excellent post, Lawson.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:13 PM, sparaig wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/s2dza/a_question_about_meditation_and_dissociation/c4ao4ku Sometimes I wax too poetic in too long-winded a way, but I'm proud of this one. Feel free to flame in the original thread if you like. That's exactly what I believed - - in 1980. It's still a mystery how Vaj got a bump upon the head in 1980. http://movieclips.com/8rGnN-a-shot-in-the-dark-movie-a-bump-upon-the-head/
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/s2dza/a_question_about_meditation_and_dissociation/c4ao4ku Sometimes I wax too poetic in too long-winded a way, but I'm proud of this one. Feel free to flame in the original thread if you like. L First of all there is a 'fatal flaw' in your hypothesis: Lawson says: During meditation, this normal mode of functioning is a state of complete quiet: no thoughts, no sensory perception, no objects of attention of any kind. One isn't even aware of being aware. It is Pure Consciousness --Pure Awareness --Pure Being --One Without a Second --etc. It is also called turiya (the Fourth state) or Samadhi (sameness). Lawson, if you're not even aware of being aware, how can it be *pure* awareness? Pure awareness is WHAT YOU ARE, Everybody's inner being is pure happiness, remember that from the 7 steps? Your ARE pure happiness which IS awareness (chit), if you haven't experienced pure happiness during TM, *YOU HAVE NOT TRANSCENDED*, period! (hint, Sat-Chit-Ananda) Glorified ignorance?, good thing you left That 'guru'. CC would hardly be described as glorified ignorance, unless you can describe self-realization as such, (pathetic). It should be noted that it is the 'contact' (with Brahman) that is infinite joy... MMY Gita VIvs28 You're dilemma may be that you don't understand degrees of bliss; awareness of the self AS bliss begins in CC, embraces the entire creation in GC and beyond even that, in UC, FWIW.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:13 PM, sparaig wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/s2dza/a_question_about_meditation_and_dissociation/c4ao4ku Sometimes I wax too poetic in too long-winded a way, but I'm proud of this one. Feel free to flame in the original thread if you like. That's exactly what I believed - - in 1980. Perhaps there is something to what Vaj is saying, yes?
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:13 PM, sparaig wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/s2dza/a_question_about_meditation_and_dissociation/c4ao4ku Sometimes I wax too poetic in too long-winded a way, but I'm proud of this one. Feel free to flame in the original thread if you like. That's exactly what I believed - - in 1980. It's still a mystery how Vaj got a bump upon the head in 1980. http://movieclips.com/8rGnN-a-shot-in-the-dark-movie-a-bump-upon-the-head/ I think Vaj deserves a little more respect, though I think he kind of threw out the baby with the bath water, he still has some legitimate critiques of the tmorg.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:13 PM, sparaig wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/s2dza/a_question_about_meditation_and_dissociation/c4ao4ku Sometimes I wax too poetic in too long-winded a way, but I'm proud of this one. Feel free to flame in the original thread if you like. That�s exactly what I believed - - in 1980. 32 years from now I hope to be as well off as you are now, Vaj... L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u no_reply@... wrote: [...] I think Vaj deserves a little more respect, though I think he kind of threw out the baby with the bath water, he still has some legitimate critiques of the tmorg. Low hanging fruit. Saddam Hussein could have come up with legitimate critiques of the tm org. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:13 PM, sparaig wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/s2dza/a_question_about_meditation_and_dissociation/c4ao4ku Sometimes I wax too poetic in too long-winded a way, but I'm proud of this one. Feel free to flame in the original thread if you like. That's exactly what I believed - - in 1980. Perhaps there is something to what Vaj is saying, yes? Since you don't even understand MMY's comment about CC being glorified ignorance, I'm not surprised you empathize with him. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: my best TM theory exposition yet, I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:13 PM, sparaig wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/s2dza/a_question_about_meditation_and_dissociation/c4ao4ku Sometimes I wax too poetic in too long-winded a way, but I'm proud of this one. Feel free to flame in the original thread if you like. That's exactly what I believed - - in 1980. Perhaps there is something to what Vaj is saying, yes? Since you don't even understand MMY's comment about CC being glorified ignorance, I'm not surprised you empathize with him. L. Lyou said that was your 'old' Guru, is MMY your old guru?, sorry if I misunderstood??. Though I understand the idea of CC being not the final or ultimate state of realization, I certainly wouldn't describe it as 'glorified ignorance' though that might be an accurate statement, it is in very poor tasteha, ah!
