--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > 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.
I did read it. You have dropped in on a thread with history which is my context. Outside that context I have no trouble with what you posted. It is one of the many ways Maharishi used the term "path" within a specific context. So I guess we are all good. > > --- 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. > > > > > >
