--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
No idea what this means. > Outside that context I have no trouble with what you posted. Um, except that Lawson and I were "applying an incorrect logical level to the teaching," according to you. And before that, Lawson was "confusing [MMY's] rap about the pathless path of transcendence in meditation with the outer path of a person on a path to enlightenment." Plus a whole bunch of belittling sarcastic remarks directed at Lawson, who hadn't said anything the least bit nasty to you. Never mind. If you don't want to discuss it further, that's fine, just say that instead of doing this little dance. 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. > > > > > > > > > >
