--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 2007, at 12:44 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2007, at 8:45 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > <snip> > > > > As anyone knows who reads my posts here on FFL, I have alot > > > > of complaints about MMY and the TMO. But this is the one > > > > thing that should not and cannot be taken away from the man: > > > > he promoted and made available to the world a technique to > > > > obtain enlightenment that was easy and effortless to do. And > > > > although I can't "prove" it (this can only be something that > > > > one can declare subjectively), it is this effortlessness that > > > > makes it the most effective self-development technique around. > > > > What Shemp said. > > > > Of course, the True Nonbelievers will insist that > > it's not subjective experience but rather "what > > you have been taught to believe." But they can't > > prove that any more than we can prove our > > subjective assessment of TM. So it's a standoff. > > Not really, because I would not argue that subjective experiences are > not important. Instead I would point out then unless you have some > perspective outside the TMO on mantra-shastra, mantra-use in Tantric > and Shank orders, etc. you most likely will not possess enough > perspective and relative knowledge to be able to comment in a truly > objective manner.
We're talking about subjective experience here, Vaj. Unfortunately, that may not to be obvious to those > still clinging to ideas that were, by and large, just marketing spin. Nope, personal subjective experience. Objectivity and book-larnin' ain't relevant here. <snip> > > > He took it away from himself when he declared that TM was NOT > > > effortless.... > > > > The closest MMY has come to such a declaration is > > to use the phrase "effortless effort"--but it's > > important to understand the context of that phrase, > > which the True Nonbelievers simply ignore. > > It would only be "closest" if that were the only time he referred > to it. And it may be the only time you have heard that. That's all > that tells me. So let's have quotes (with context) from some of the other times he's addressed it. It's pretty basic stuff so those who argue to the contrary, > really do look kinda silly if they're outside the TM audience. In > general I think it's not a good idea to comment on a topic unless you > have some good basis from which to argue. With that in mind you might > want to either take a course on mantra-shastra or yoga-darshana. Then > at least you wouldn't come across as such a "mere believer". I'm a mere "subjective experiencer," Vaj. > > > Any real yogi familiar with Patanjali will be well aware that as > > > long as there are supports (alambanas) there will always be some > > > effort. > > > > > > Effortless meditation or non-meditation can only occur without > > > supports or props like mantras, etc. > > > > This is fundamentally a misleading quibble that > > has zilch to do with TM's claim to uniqueness. > > In other words, you didn't get the import of the message. Fine, no > surprise there. No, you didn't get the import of *my* message. The operative words: "zilch to do with TM's claim to uniqueness."
