--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > The language is used instead to *break patterns*, to > get the student OUT OF HIS HEAD, out of intellectual > constructs and the use of the intellect, period. The > purpose is to create a mental environment that HAS > NO CHOICE but to BE HERE NOW. > > It's the NOW that allows or facilitates the reali- > zation IMO, not the language. > > > Maharishi, almost never, used language this way. > > My experience was never, period. But I am open to > the possibility that others who spent more time with > him saw him use language this way. I doubt it seri- > ously, because he did not ever strike me as being > aware of this particular use of language AT ALL, > but it's possible.
He didn't use it often, but he did from time to time. In fact, I've quoted one instance here on several occasions, and it's gone right over your head. <snip> > So it went for the next decade or so. Realization. > Cool. Loss of realization. Bummer. And with each > new bummer, a part of me was always trying to > conceptually "recreate" the process that had made > the last realization possible. > > And it never worked. Not once. > > The reason, as far as I can tell, is that THERE > IS NO PROCESS. Like shit, realization just happens. > There may have been some seeming "catalyst" TO it > happening, but that's probably an illusion. And > trying to "recreate" the catalyst never works. The > SAME process that worked once to "trigger" an > experience of realization never seems to work a > second time when used as a kind of exercise in > "conceptual process modeling." Actually, what you describe fits MMY's model just about perfectly.
