--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: >
> > For me, in my experience it is all about shakti. And > > it is not based on some kind of more or less abstract > > reflection/justification. I came up with this recognition > > more than 20 years ago. I realized there were oddities / > > discrepancies between what a certain saint/master said > > at that time, and the actual action of shakti which > > worked along with it, and which was unmistakeable for me. > > I have no problem with this, as long as you recognize > that "unmistakable to me" doth not equate to fact, but > is the expression of a purely subjective experience. It's a model that heed me to make sense of this particular situation. It worked for me, that is all. And it allowed me to live with this situation without having to be a fundamentalist, or a TB of any sort. For others it may be totally irrelevant. > > Through several such incidents, I came to the conclusion, > > that the shakti/energy would work on it's own. The shakti > > was contageous (still is). It actually brought about some > > of the biggest, most transformative experiences of my life. > > In fact I might have probably still be in TM, if it wasn't > > for that. > > > > I realized, that this energy was certainly always connected > > with this person /master, but it wasn't always clear if the > > master knew about it. At times certainly he knew, at other > > times he didn't seem to. There were sometimes seeming > > contradictions between the two. So I came to this conclusion: > > there is this power, which I percieve, which works for the > > good, and there were at the same time things this master > > said which I didn't like (and sometimes also didn't > > materialize). > > > > I also have to say, there was nothing grave in this > > discrepancies, much of it was depending on my own personality, > > no misuse or big things. I also have to say, that this person > > was well aware of having a normal human personality, and not > > being a model of perfection. > > Cool, I guess. It's as good an "explanation" as any, > based on your subjective experience and interpretation > of it. I appreciate that you aren't presenting it as > Truth or the *only* way to explain things. So many do. >
