--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > If you think its not OK, then you have missed the point. > > > As MMY points out, at least according to HIS theory, you > > > can fail to "transcend" (no thoughts no mantra) every > > > time you meditate until your last meditation before > > > enlightenment, and you're still doing just fine. > > > > But down with that goes Sankaras 'No mantra can ever make > > you free'. Because then you just do mantra japa (+ day > > dreaming) and claim this leads to enlightenment. Just sayin' > > Read what Lawson wrote again: "Until your last meditation > before enlightenment." In this theoretical situation, > you've released almost all your stress without experiencing > TC-by-itself,
But I thought in TM theory, you release stress through transcendence? So you release stress through the positive vibration of the mantra? Then don't ask about japa in activity. > but in this last meditation you *do* > experience TC-by-itself, and that releases the last few > stresses. > > To put it another way, the mantra makes you *almost but not > quite* free, and then when you *lose* the mantra in your > last meditation and finally experience TC-by-itself, that > dissolves the last stress and you become completely free. > So it isn't the mantra that takes you that final step to > freedom. > > Mind you, this is *theoretical* only. Exactly! It's all, all, all theoretically. These are all theoretical constructs. What do you think Maharishi is referring to when he says, that the knowledge on one level of consciousness is a lie on the next level? That you have to FORGET all so-called knowledge when you actually want to GET there? So, questioning some of the assumptions you learned with your starters meditation is obviously something you should consider, provided you take Maharishi serious. But, of course, there must be some desire to KNOW, some desire to find out, instead of repeating the standard model ad infinitum. I am not heretical. I am just following what Maharishi said. > It may or may not have > ever actually happened this way. But it does fit what you > quote Shankara as saying (although it would be helpful to > have more context). >
