the key is in Curtis's statement about the silence -experienced in meditation-. by saying this, he indicates that the silence experienced in meditation does not also pervade activity before and after meditation, and so the -silence experienced in meditation- becomes just another relative phenomenon, experienced as transient.
only when silence is experienced continuously, waking, dreaming and sleeping does it convey its true nature as something we can identify with. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <lengli...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" > > <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > Curtis writes in this, "I don't share his (Maharishi's) view > > > that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature or our > > > real self." > > > > > > Ouch, is that right? True? > > > > Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of > > meditation is not obviously my "true" nature or "real self." It is > > just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it means but > > I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives death > > for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi ascribes > > to it. > > > > Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self? Why? > > If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT identify it > as being "more real" than non-silence? > > > L. >
