--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > I didn't say anything nasty to Lawson Judy. > > Still dancing...
The label "nasty" is your own awfullizing reframe of someone else's conversation. It is unfriendly spin and very busy-body. Nothing was nasty between us. It is your contrivance to find a way to butt in and demonize me. I am not surprised. > > [Curtis to Lawson:] > No doubt Maharishi himself could have benefited from your insight since he > used > the term freely in many contexts. Perhaps you can send a memo to his official > organization to tighten up the ship a bit per your instruction. > > Of course in the interest of trying to distinguish himself from every other > Hindu mantra huckster, he would agree with your point that HIS path was not > like > any other path. His being much faster, better, more authentic, longer lasting, > fresher breath,slimming and more betterest in every way. All those other gurus > with their tedious paths, lacking the kind of rapid progress toward > enlightenment assured by Maharishi.(In our experience it takes 5-7 years.) > Poor > suckers with their earnest little "paths" while meditators sit at the goal > from > day one. Living the dream, aren't you? > > 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. Or > perhaps you are speaking the Advaita truth from the perspective of your state > of > Unity. If that is the case you really ought to knock off confusing the > ignorant. > We (speaking on behalf of the little people) get ever so confused and might > stop > meditating because you are telling us there is no path to the Goal. (The > assumed > Hindu teleology. That one.) > > Plus did you know that celebrities do TM? Really they do. Some really big > ones. I mean really big, both literally and figuratively. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I rose to the challenge of his snark. Predictably we do not agree on the > outcome. > > > > I accept your correction that you never mislabeled your own snark as > > non-snark. > > > > I reject the idea that I would say something nasty to Lawson. I like him. > > He is a snarky fellow and so am I. I don't believe either of us takes it > > personally. I consider him a valued resource here. > > > > I've made my distinctions clear. I believe that the term path is context > > dependent within Maharishi's teaching. Does anyone in this conversation > > really give a shit about my opinion? I sort of do, but even that is > > waning. If Lawson doesn't care enough to defend his own position, I really > > don's see the point pursuing it with you at this point. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Lawson, NOT being snarky according to Judy: > > > > > > According to Judy, Lawson didn't say anything the least > > > bit nasty *to Curtis*. Whereas Curtis said *lots* of > > > nasty things to Lawson. > > > > > > And Judy never said *she* wasn't being snarky in her > > > last post, after Curtis decided to say snarky things > > > to her. > > > > > > Interestingly, he's still dancing (and refusing to > > > clarify). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Er, what "path?" > > > > > > > > The original phrase is "off the program." With TM, there is no path. If > > > > you > > > > think there is, you need to get checked. > > > > > > > > /me looks pointedly at a large number of former TM teachers who post on > > > > this > > > > forum. > > > > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > > > > > Judy NOT being snarky: > > > > > > > > > Never mind. If you don't want to discuss it further, > > > > > that's fine, just say that instead of doing this little > > > > > dance. > > > > > > > > No dance, just clarification. I'll count your last post as tripling > > > > down. Glad we aren't betting partners in Vegas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > >
