--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- sandiego108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > > > I've had it up to my seventh chakra with this rant > > > over the last several decades, "Invincibility, > > > invincibility" what a pile of vedic cow droppings. > > Its > > > just so silly. first, wtf does it even mean? > > > Invincibility of will, of desire, of intent? The > > > inevitability of a space-time experience? > > > > > Actually kind of a brilliant ploy by Maharishi-- The > > world is commonly > > seen as having no relationship to us, except as an > > external entity > > that acts upon us in a way that most people would > > like to improve. > > > > So the desire of a common man is to be "invincible" > > to that, to be > > armored from the challenges and complexities and > > "negativity" of the > > world, the means of which are TM and TMSP. Therefore > > we continue to > > practice TM and TMSP to gain "invincibility", and > > gain quite another > > thing altogether. > > > > The fellow was nothing if not one pointed. > > Well, yes, the man was one-pointed, to say the least. > But the problem with "invincibility" is that it is > conceptualized from the ego, or at least understood by > the majority of people as the fulfillment of desire. > Its the same distortion present in taking Patanjali's > "Avert the danger before it arises" as a > recommendation for jyotish! Patanjali clearly states > what the danger is and it is ignorance or the > identification of the seer with the seen, not some > relative fulfillment or the promise of s sidhi to be > capable of such a thing. >
Knowledge is structured in consciousness... And... any Hindu philosophical writing has 24 main interpretations according to MMY. 6 different philisophical systems times 4 different perspectives of consciousness. Lawson
