--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > He's already said that he missed this point for a very long > time > > > > > > (need for Vedic architecture). > > > > > > > > > > when did he say that? > > > > > > > > In what of those online lecture thingies I believe. > > > > > > > > > And how could him saying such a thing > > > > > possibly have ANY weight against 30 years of proclamations > about > > > > > established in being and then performing action? > > > > > > > > It was an admission of being less than perfectly correct for > the last > > > > 30 years, eh? > > > > > > I think Shemp's point is that if such a thing were said, > > > it would *also* be an admission that the whole "capture > > > the fort" approach taken in "TM classic" was a crock of > > > shit. The two propositions are mutually exclusive, not > > > complementary. Either TM enables one to transcend > > > and thus become enlightened in any environment and > > > in any situation or it doesn't, and one has to live in the > > > "proper" Vedic environment to become enlightened. > > > > > > Here's a study for you -- if the founder of a popular > > > technique of meditation (who promoted it for decades > > > by saying that it was the fastest possible path to enlight- > > > enment) suddenly changes his mind and says that he's > > > been wrong all this time and the only thing that counts > > > is living in a building of the right type...does it make you > > > want to go out and bomb Iraq and buy an SUV? :-) > > > > :-) Yeehaaaaa! (Dr. Strangelove?) > > > > Seriously though - if he says that all that matters is a building > of > > the right type, then 'enlightenment' has a relative cause and the > > whole thing falls apart. > > > > ??? What do you call meditation? And in MMY's theory, someone COULD > become enlightened due to living a relatively stress-free life, even > without meditation. Some things are more anti-stress than others. > MAK, for instance. Conceivably someone could become enlightened by > eating MAK.
Enlightenment is not the result of a causal chain. The best that can be said in words is that we discover what always already is. The Sun is always shining and 'we' find that the clouds have blown away. Eternal is not a really long time, it's beyond time, beginingless. Unbounded is not a really big space, it's beyond space. When awakening is talked about, grace and mysteriousness always come into the picture. TM does not cause enlightenment, the best that can be said is that it uncovers what always is. The whole stress explaination isn't what we think it is. JohnY JohnY To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
