I don't think you read what I wrote, in particular the MMY quote. Try it again, please, paying attention to what you wrote that I was responding to. I was not commenting on Barry's use of the term in its most general sense, which I have no problem with.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > > Double team double down! Impressive. > > I'm sure you are familiar with the context dependent nature of the term. > Check the original context of how Barry was using it to understand my > objection to Lawson's Criticism. You are both applying an incorrect logical > level of the teaching. > > Maharishi used them both ways depending on the context. Context is key. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, if the authors of what you quoted think that TM > > > > has a path in the sense it was originally used. then > > > > they needed to get checked also. > > > > > <snip> > > > I believe you are confusing his rap about the pathless path > > > of transcendence in meditation with the outer path of a > > > person on a path to enlightenment. > > > > In Science of Being and Art of Living, commenting on the > > word "path" in the title of the first of a series of > > sections discussing different types of paths to God > > Realization (the first being "Intellectual Path to God > > Realization"), he writes: > > > > "In dealing with the omnipresent state of the impersonal God, > > a statement was made that the transcendental, omnipresent > > Divine, by virtue of its being omnipresent, is the essential > > Being of everyone. It forms the basic life of one and all; > > it is not anything different from one's own Self or Being. > > Therefore, no path to realize it could be conceived of. > > > > "Certainly, to talk in terms of 'path' of realization of > > one's own Being seems to be unjustified, but because all the > > time in our life the attention is left outside in the gross > > relative field of experience, we are as if debarred from the > > direct experience of the essential nature of our own Self, > > or transcendental Being. > > > > "That is why it is necessary to bring the attention to the > > trnscendental level of our Being. This bringing of the > > attention is said to be a way to realize. Thus, although > > we find the idea of a path to realization absurd > > metaphysically, it is highly significant on a practical > > level." > > > > I read that as the exact opposite of what you suggest: > > metaphysicaly "path" to God realization is absurd, but > > practically speaking, in meditation the attention does > > take a "path" from the relative to the transcendental > > level. > > > > Of course, I'm sure you were privy to "inner teachings" > > in which he said something more like what you remember. > > But the teaching to which Lawson and I were exposed was > > what I quoted above. So we're not confusing anything, > > we're accurately recalling the rap *we* heard. > > >
