Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:RE:RE:
________________________________ From: "authfri...@yahoo.com" <authfri...@yahoo.com> Oh, right, if I don't accept Krishnamurti as an authority on TM issues, I'm just putting my fingers in my ears. Think you can make yourself look just a little more ridiculous, iranitea? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Judy sez (as expected): And no, I'm not going to listen to Krishnamurti, of all people, for insight into TM, especially as recommended by someone who can't figure out what the hell I'm talking about. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: iranitea, you are too funny. All that effort writing your "helpful" putdowns, and you never had any idea what Lawson and I were getting at in the first place--in fact, you have it precisely backwards. Every one of your assertions about what we think is wrong, including the final one that Lawson believes he "needs to be concerned about Xeno." That one is particularly hilarious since his own words were exactly the opposite. "Addicted to the TM process" is almost as amusing. And no, I'm not going to listen to Krishnamurti, of all people, for insight into TM, especially as recommended by someone who can't figure out what the hell I'm talking about. Now, run along and find something else to be concerned about, please, some posts you are capable of understanding. And if the words confuse you, it's always better to ask what a person means rather than guessing and then giving them a lecture based on your confusion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Lawsen and Judy, try to listen to this talk of J.Krishnamurti here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYvV07c0p4Y&noredirect=1 especially from 4:30min onwards. If you can actually listen to it, and see the context to the question here, than I can cease to feel concerned about you ;-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: I think, you and Lawsen, on the one side, and Xeno, me and a few others around here probably, are living on two parallel lines that never meet, with reference to this statement of Lawsen. For example, I would agree with Xeno 100% and swear that you have no capacity to understand even what he is talking about. I stumbled over this very same sentence as Seraphita did. And I think I know were you (both) are coming from in this respect: It's the same, you may not know it's the *mantra* you are thinking, as it is so refined (it may be like a 'rhythm' or changed according to checking notes), and you may not know that you are even thinking the mantra as it is so refined. But the problem with all this is, as I think you both don't quite see, that you make the means (thinking of the mantra) into the end, to which this means should lead. And here comes Xeno's point: Once you reached the end, the means becomes obsolete. You don't keep carrying the boat around with you, when you have reached the other shore. But the other shore looks different than you expected. So you realize at some point, that the means don't work anymore in the old, expected way. You could still use them - that was what Xeno was pointing out - for slightly different ends, more like, just to relax, or even wake up or to be in a harmonious thought-space, but not anymore to transcend, as you are always already transcended - or to be in silence, as the silence of transcendence becomes *directly* accessible to you. Now, I am sure anybody can understand these thoughts, but - as I suppose - you are skeptic about Xeno's realizations, you simply don't accept what he says, and being addicted to the TM process, think he is meditating wrongly. And therefore Lawsens feeling that he needs to be concerned about Xeno --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Seraphita wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: That's a classic double-bind. Not really. There's a "right" answer, as far as Lawson is concerned, which is, essentially, that the question ("After all this time, what do you mean by 'mantra' in the context of TM?") should be unanswerable in any specific terms by a really long-tem TMer. I had the same reaction to what Xeno wrote. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > >If you even attempt to answer the question, then I become reasonably confident >that I no longer need to pay attention to you in this context. > > > > > >>>>
