--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <lengli...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:22 AM, sparaig 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?
> >
> >
> > IME, meditators get addicted to "silent" states and calm, thought-
> > free states, just makes them "flat". I suspect this is why many
> > outsiders experience TM folks as having a flat affect. They don't
> > integrate thought, they're too busy trying to escape it.
> >
>
> Certainly mood-making would make folks "off" and no-doubt there's lots
> of mood-making going on at MUM. On the other hand, Fred Travis has been
> at MUM for nearly 30 years and doesn't come off that way.
>
>
> L.
>
Maybe Fred Travis doesn't meditate too much.
