--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good one, Turq, that about encapsulates what I've > thought often about her comments: Out of touch with > intention itself.
Intent is not really *dealt with* in the TM dogma. It's very possible to miss its value. In some of the other traditions I studied, we were taught specifically to cut through the fog of someone's word and suss out their *intent* in saying them. She never had that training; she probably doesn't even believe that such a sussing is possible. On this forum, a focus on intent would involve reading someone's post and then thinking, "What did this person hope to *accomplish* by posting this?" If the answer to that question is, "To uplift others to a more noble or interesting plane of awareness," then you are dealing with one sort of being. If the answer to that question is, "To lower as many others as possible to my plane of awareness," then you're dealing with another sort of being. Interestingly, that is the factor that is kill- ing Hillary in the polls and helping Obama. The people can feel each of their *intents*, and are reacting accordingly. > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > > Mailander > > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > And even when she's right, > > > > she's missing your intention. > > > > > > Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five > > > for "seeing." I think the root cause is that she > > > is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- > > > ecially her own. > > > > But note that (a) Barry didn't read my post, and (b) > > he's no more able than Angela to explain how I > > "missed" his intention. > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
