--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" > <tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@> wrote: > > > > Torquise B srites snipped: > > > No "purification" is required to experience realization. > > > > Jim Flanegin writes snipped from longer piece: > > Right. The experience of Realization can be had by anyone, > > any time. But in order to sustain Realization, purification > > must occur. I think it was Muktananda who said instant > > enlightenment is just that; it lasts for an instant. > > > > TomT; > > Jean Kline woke up in 1955 passed in 1998. "The awakening was > > instantanious, clarity takes place in space-time". > > Thanks, Tom. > > It's fascinating how much more accurate your statement > is than Jim's.
Here's an example of what I was referring to in my previous post. Jim's disagreement with Barry on this point couldn't be expressed any more politely. What's really fascinating is that to Barry, any disagreement with his perspective is by definition hostile, so he puts Jim down. > Jim's implies *failure* or something > *missing* in short-term experiences of realization. > Your statement -- far more accurate -- refers only to > how much clarity we bring to the experience. I don't see any hint of "failure" or even anything "missing" in Jim's post. It seems to me he's saying exactly what Tom says but in slightly different terms. On the other hand, your "how much clarity we bring to the experience" itself automatically implies something missing, i.e., that less than total clarity is possible. Same with Tom's "clarity takes place in space-time." No bullshit > about physiology, no guru saying, "Yeah, sure you've had > the experience of realization but you still have to stick > around and pay me because it isn't 'stabilized' yet." The issue of physiology is unsettled, but of course maintaining that physiology is a factor does not (particularly with TM) necessarily involve "payments" to the guru nor even "sticking around." To suggest otherwise is to load one's argument with a straw man (for the sake, obviously, of a putdown). > The only thing that develops over time is clarity of > experience, which develops on its own, no guru needed. > Much better way of expressing it. Jim, of course, said nothing about needing a guru. The only real issue here is whether physiology is a factor in the development of clarity. But Barry doesn't even address it; he just nastily contradicts Jim's position with a bunch of putdowns and tries to portray Jim as wrong, wrong, wrong. One further point: Barry has repeatedly touted the Buddhist approach to attempting to maintain positive states of awareness and its tolerance for other perspectives, contrasting TM unfavorably with Buddhism in these regards. Yet we rarely see Barry following these Buddhist principles.
