--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > > "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" > > > <tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@> wrote: > > > > > > > > TorquiseB writes snipped: > > > > > Well said. That's *exactly* why I suggested that > > > > > having been given a strong intellectual framework > > > > > that appeals to the normal (that is, unenlightened) > > > > > waking state can actually be an *obstacle* to the > > > > > appreciation of enlightenment when it dawns. > > > > > > > > Tom T: > > > > Heard Gangaji say after her trip to FF. She had never met such > > > > strong minds before. She laid it on to the effect of the sidhis > > > > program. She commented that it made it very difficult to break > > > > through the conditioning but once the break was made they got > > > > it totally. Sounded like the on the other hand gig. In one way > > > > it was harder to get it but on the other hand once the > > > > understanding was complete, it was a done deal. So who can > > > > say whether any of it was good or bad. It just was > > > > what it was. Tom > > > > > > *Exactly* the experience I was talking about, seen both > > > in a context similar to Ganaji's (including a couple of > > > her satsangs) and in other traditions. It's almost as if > > > the more the person has convinced them-selves (that is, > > > their intellect or mind) that they "understand" enlight- > > > enment, the less likely they are to recognize it when > > > it appears. > > > > Not exactly-- That is not really what Tom said Gangaji said. Or at > > least one side of it. The other side of what she says is that once > > those with strong conditioning broke through and 'got it', they got > > it *totally*. No bits and pieces here and there. Kind of like the > > way a person eats ice cream. Either a little at a time, or wait > > until the craving builds and have the whole thing at once. > > Uh...not exactly. I think it's *you* who needs to go > back and read the words attributed to Gangaji. While > what you say about "getting it" is true, what I saw > as implied in her statement was the phenomenon I have > seen so many times, TMers taking *longer* TO get it, > because of their conditioning. So the analogy is more > like a lot of people eating ice cream for years and > years, while denying vociferously that they have ever > tasted it. Then one day the taste "sinks in" and they > have "finally" tasted ice cream. :-) > Sounds like each of us is emphasizing the part of her attribution that we enjoy most. I've emphasized the parts below which support what I said bounded within asterisks. I was talking about what Tom says about her when he comments: "She commented that it made it very difficult to break through the conditioning but *once the break was made they got it totally*... In one way it was harder to get it but on the other hand *once the understanding was complete, it was a done deal*."
So whether a person 'gets it' immediately but then takes longer to 'get it' completely, or whether they deny it, but then finally 'get it' completely, all at once, seems to be basically two equal roads to the same place. This doesn't demonstrate a shortcoming about TM at all.
