On Nov 19, 2007, at 3:08 PM, authfriend wrote:
Thanks Judy for the somewhat thoughtful response, but you are still
being reactive IMO.
--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2007, at 11:01 AM, do.rflex wrote:
>
> > I go by *experience*, not TMO propaganda.
>
> TM instruction is TMO propaganda. You cannot be instructed in
> authentic TM without being indoctrinated in their set of
> expectations. Heck, they'll even try to convince you they've
> proved it with "science"!
Nonsense. It's entirely possible to separate the
"indoctrination" from experience of the technique.
Not only is it possible, it isn't possible *not*
to separate them.
There you go attempting to twist what I've said and morph it into
something other than that which I intended. I did not say it's
impossible. It is a requirement to sit through the intro. lectures,
no? Has that changed (yes or no)?
There's no way around it, unless of course the un-recertified, pre-
Raja mantra-dispensers attempt to skip part of the process.
It's not possible to "indoctrinate" someone into
the experience of the technique.
No, I'm not speaking of this. They have to hear the current spiel,
like it or not. But you do bring up an interesting point, because I
do believe if we look closely we'll see an attempt to connect the
"gap" between thoughts, the sandhi, to a higher state of
consciousness (and furthermore link that to all sorts of fantastic
razzle-dazzle, from quantum physics to whether or not your house has
an entrance on the south side). This is the crucial indoctrination.
It is a question as to whether or not that is currently part of the
"teaching" process. And of course one also wonders if first imprints
(after one learns to consciously dissociate from thought) are even
"deeper" than normal everyday imprints.
That experience
is what it is, independently of any thoughts,
scientific or otherwise, *about* the experience.
Yes, the sandhi is an important starting point, but that's all it is,
a starting point.
Fortunately (for the TMO, not us), this is also a perfect place to
imprint any message they wish to coney to the nascent consciousness
with their chosen marketing message. Do you deny that this takes place?
Descriptions of the experience cannot generate
the experience because, by definition, such
descriptions, no matter how precise, are always
inaccurate and inadequate.
Well this is not entirely true. Certain languages, like Sanskrit, are
capable not merely of just some sort of poetic "double" entendre, but
multiple entendre (capable of producing all lokas or points-of-view)
of any situation or happening.
This not only includes being, it also can include non-being -- non-
existence. The "gap" of no-though can be described in a multiple
entendre.
The most "indoctrination" and descriptions of
the experience can accomplish is to lead you to
learn the technique and inspire you to keep
practicing.
It colors your perception therafter and creates certain expectations.
[to Angela:)
Huh? WTF?
> One of the most obvious deficits in TM practice is torpor, and
> then, falling asleep. If you know what causes this and when you
> observe (for example) that the technique for relieving torpor
> is not part of TM practice, you can gain an understanding as to
> why it occurs so commonly.
Torpor is considered a basic yogic deficit, it's elaborated in both
Hindu and Buddhist (and no doubt Jain, Christian and Jewish) yogic lit.
For someone who allegedly has a background in literature, I'm really
rather at a loss to appreciate your lack of understanding in this
style inquiry (even a basic overview of yogic literature and
understanding, you're almost defining TM-naivete). If so, perhaps you
missed something?
This is circular reasoning. You're defining "torpor"
and sleep as a deficit.
No, (see above) yogic (and mystical lit. in general) define this
state of lethargy as antithetical to higher states of consciousness.
(If I dare say, this might even be a universal). In fact, if the
sthiti state, the space of no-thought, becomes so pre-disposed in
certain individuals, it will tend towards tamas (watch out anyone
with kapha in their constitution). This is no good for cultivation of
samadhi (or whatever you call it). Less good is to imprint this,
session after session after session on your daily practice. So,
therefore, this state is not to be cultivated (esp. not repeatedly!).
So, therefore this is (at very least) somewhat abhorrent to
meditators. It's one thing to fall into distraction, but quite
another to become distracted and then fall into unconsciousness (sleep).
If they aren't a deficit but
part of a natural cycle, then obviously there's no
basis to have a technique for "relieving" them; to
"relieve" them would interfere with that cycle and
would therefore *itself* be a deficit.
They are part of a natural cycle of ignorance: awake - asleep - dream
- awake -sleep - dream -etc. but samadhi and "the fourth" (turiya)
are beyond this cycle. Didn't you ever see the woodcut of the mystic
breaking through to the spheres? The intent is to "break out" of this
chain of ignorance, no? Therefore, anything that ties you back into
that cycle, is to be countermined -- the quicker the better. No death
is no real transcendence. Stop hiding Judy.
I'll respond authentically to the rest, if and when I have time.
Here's a quick gloss (there's just too much to respond with your side-
tracks for my time):
> Another way, is through authoritative testimony, the experiences
> of others in the practical tradition itself. Particularly in
> regard to mental mantra practice, it's very detailed in what the
> stages are, what their signs are and what the pitfalls are.
But the "practical tradition itself" of which you
speak is not TM, therefore the "testimony" relating
to it is irrelevant with regard to TM.
No, there are important reasons any valid meditative tradition would
not ignore what I'm talking about. To do so is at the expense of the
student (and sadly students are expendable in MMY's TMO).
My overall point is that you never, in my observation,
actually deal with TM on its own terms. You're always
making arguments to the effect that because Tradition
A says X and MMY says Y, therefore MMY must be wrong.
But that's no more valid as an argument than a TMer
saying that because Tradition A says X and MMY says Y,
therefore Tradition A must be wrong.
This is incorrect. I've merely pointed out the yogic missteps in his
attempt at neo-tantra-poised-as-neo-Veda.
I don't have time to teach you the right way, so don't expect me to
reeducate an unwilling and failed yogini.
You sound like a Catholic priest insisting Martin
Luther was wrong because he didn't teach Catholic
dogma, or a Republican insisting a Democrat is
wrong because the Democrat advocates X while Reagan
advocated Y.
You sound like a yogini who follows the words of fallen yogi, a
realizer of the enlightened ego -- and not true enlightenment.
That isn't an argument against Luther's
teaching or against Democratic policy that would
convince anybody who wasn't already a believing
Catholic or a devout Republican.
That was not a statement against real yogis and yoginis, whom I prize.
That MMY's teaching is different from that of
standard Yogic tradition is not only a given, it's
MMY's raison d'etre, just as a teaching that was
different from Catholic dogma was Luther's raison
d'etre.
OMG, what a cop-out. Oh yeah, the narcissist-materialist renouncer as
rebel-without-a-clue who naive westerners still glom on. There's an
upcoming TV biography doncha know?
Yeah, you almost had me there Jude!
Not.
If you can't show why MMY's or Luther's
teachings are wrong *on their own terms*, you
haven't said a damn thing worth hearing.
It's a bad analogy. You can't even find an appropriate analogy!
Mahesh is more like the secretary of a pope (not Martin Luther,
sorry) who, despite not being a priest, goes ahead and re-packages
the mass and sells it. Of course your problem is that you believe
it's something new, merely because it's been re-packaged and
skillfully marketed. This would be like a non-Catholic meeting up
with our above secretary of the pope and, having no knowledge of the
Roman Catholic Mass, buys the "new" re-packaged Mass and then
declares it a new tradition!
