Comment below: **
--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], boyboy_8 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I too am no expert in the vagueries of mantra meanings. The > > > > > point is that they are phrases...meaningless sounds whose > > > > > meaning is known? > > > > > > > > (Semantically) meaningless sounds whose *effects* > > > > are known. > > > > > > I'm not sure how anyone could know this Judy. > > > > I wasn't making a claim, Curtis, I was correcting > > what appeared to be boyboy's misunderstanding of > > MMY's definition of mantras (see above--he has > > "meaningless sounds whose meaning is known"). > > I figured that Judy. By now I am hip to your getting the teaching > straight first and then deciding how you relate to it process. I was > challenging Maharishi's claim. It just doesn't seem as if it has any > support other than faith. > > > > > I certainly don't "know" this myself, but then I > > don't have access to whatever materials there are > > about mantras in the Shankaracharya tradition. I > > don't think MMY invented the notion, however. > > It seems as it these claims might come from the Tantric texts because > I can't think of any of the Vedic texts that deal with this level of > precision. I hope one of our Tantric scripture enthusiasts can help. > it sounds as if Maharishi was using a sort of scientific sounding > analogy here from his physics studies of vibrations. In most > scriptures I have read they just lay out that these are the rules and > don't offer this kind of reasoning. It is sort of a modern approach to > thinking about them that would be unnecessary for a traditional mind > not trained to ask for such reasons isn't it? > > > > > I mean, we can probably > > > rule out a history of trying a bunch of different sounds > > > experimentally and watching some people have bad experiences or > > > have harm come to them right? > > > > On what basis can we rule it out? > > A lack of the knowledge of the scientific method? It seems to apply > modern standards of gaining reliable knowledge to a culture that was > resorting to a priest class with scriptural authority. If there were > such studies I haven't seen them being referenced in any scriptures I > read. Maharishi had a very complete set of Vedic scriptures on his > stage in Seelisberg and I ferreted my way through the ones I had not > read before on my TTC. I did see lots of examples of people in > scriptures making claims about a divine origin for beliefs. This is > even true in their Ayur Veda texts, there is no discussion of trial > and error, it is all be decree of a sage who just "knows." Maharishi's > marketing brilliance was to connect the ancient ideas with the modern > concepts that gained credibility with us, but I am challenging that it > is based on anything real. It made the system sound scientific and > more palatable. We spent months diving in to scriptures and comparing > them with modern science so I feel pretty confident that if this was > in the scriptures, we would have been using it. > > **end** Curtis, this is great (above); I really appreciate how ruthlessly and well thought-out your re-evaluation and challenge of all the received wisdom we assumed we had, is. I've assumed the mantras emerged really early on, some sort of very early-on primate or hominid type of "recognition and appreciation" thing for some tribal/family sound; some kind of "eureka" moment among early hominids that caught on, something with emotional staying power.(*) I still totally groove on the last mantra I got from Maharishi; meditation is mostly all dessert these days and if I'm still hooked on this thing after nearly 40 years (minus my 10 year hiatus) that would be some argument for some effect specifically from the sounds themselves. But that's speculation and you're right that there's no evidence in any of the Indian scriptural authority that refers to anything like the scientific method. One of the things about Maharishi, though, is the fact that he *did* experiment with tradition and technique, at least at first. That was a real revolution when he first started the movement. He kind of introduced the scientific method (to a limited degree) into the whole field. Kind of. I think that a lot of the later stuff regarding reviving vedic life may have been a kind of rubberband reaction to just how far he had been willing to go in trying out all his techniques. Just incredible hubris, when you think about it, but for lots and lots of folks what he came up with just hit the spot, even if not for long term. Anyway (and finally), I always look at this experiment with mantra meditation (and any of the associated practices and lifestyles) as a great opportunity *to* experiment. We come out of that mindset and most of us here are still in one phase or another of the great personal experiment. It's cool to debrief here. Marek (*) I remember reading an account of an Alaskan naturalist hiking alone in the wilderness and hearing a huge thrummming noise reverberating through the forest. He followed the noise some distance and peering out from some hidden spot, he sees a huge grizzly standing next to a large tree stump with a long, jagged piece of wood jutting out. The grizzly pulls the big piece far back and then lets it go; like a big guitar string it puts out the tremendous thrummming. The bear keeps this up for 45 minutes or so; over and over and over -- clearly taken up with the whole business. The idea of some sound (mantra or proto-mantra) representing something of real emotional value to early humans (or perhaps even earlier) reminded me of that story.
