--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > Chakras, Soul, are not mentioned in the argumentation of > > Lawson and Judy. If you mention them, they ignore it as > > if you have never said anything. > > Excuse me???
You may have asked me about my experiences, but mainly when I complained that you belittled, at the time, my Sahasrara as 'bit of esoterica'. It is not that you need to acknowledge my experiences, but in your whole evaluation of transcendence, it plays nor role. You just refer only to rather simplistic criterion, of silence vs activity, not acknowledging there could be other dimensions, namely the chakras as energy centers or dimensions. For example the heart is mentioned in many traditions as the seat of the soul, yet when I mention these experiences along my own PC experiences, for you noticing it only means I couldn't be fully in PC as this would be an overshadowing activity. Yet to notice this is rather crucial, as it simply means, I think, that I am more aware of what is going on. For example, I could give you one more experience, at the time I was still emersed in TM, and still was transcending 'TM-style', where you still have this experience through the outward stroke. At one point I noticed that it (the transcendence) was actually going on in the heart. At that point the heart was already partly awake. That was a very soft and subtle thing at the outward stroke, but I could notice it. Yet, I cannot say this is the case for everyone, but it is clear to me, that the transcendence can happen in the heart, without the person really noticing it. IMO there is very much you are just not aware of. I understand your dilemma: you can't speak authoritatively about chakras, you have neither learned about them, nor do you seem to have any experiences in this field. But you don't understand that this makes it virtually impossible to continue to talk about these experiences - you don't have any reference point. It is not your fault, it is the fault of a teaching that is aimed at beginners only. You just get a rough sketch of the whole picture, activity vs non-activity, inwardstroke and outwardstroke, mantra and no-mantra, that's about the whole story. And that, I am sorry is very limited. > That's simply not true. I've asked you to talk about your > chakra experiences several times, but you haven't been > willing to say much other than that you've had them. I said quite a bit, especially about the Sahasrara, but I can not carry you there. It is impossible to explain this, if you haven't experienced it. You have to eat the mango in order to know how it tastes. And even if two people eat the same mango, you still don't know if you experience the same taste. > Mostly when you've mentioned chakras, it's been just in > passing without making much if any of a connection with > the discussion. I told you for example that the sudden silencing of thoughts came through the ajna chakra, through a pull from there. So its clear that this is very relevant to my experience. I told you much more about my experiences than you ever did. That these are abstract things for you is not my mistake. > Please don't misrepresent me that way. I may not be > qualified to *discuss* chakras, but I certainly > haven't "ignored it as if you had never said anything."
