--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 28, 2008, at 7:57 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > >> > >> sparaig wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Most meditation techniques are like the TM advanced technique > >>>> except > >>>> they have the full mantra and are for another "deity" which > >>>> provides a > >>>> different and positive effect and certainly not dullness and > >>>> stress is > >>>> also dissolved. Let's not "spin doctor" with such ignorant > >>>> bullshit > >>>> from the MarshyBots. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well, I run into plenty of people who claim that meditation xyz is > >>> "just like TM" > >>> but USUALY I found it is because they don't understand TM (or > >>> perhaps their > >>> own meditation tradition for that matter, come to think of it). > >>> > >>> Do you agree with Barry's claim that TM can adequately be > >>> described by > >>> "thinking some magic words" to yourself? > >>> > >>> Lawson > >> Mantra shastra is based on nada yoga, the science of sound. You > >> can't > >> take any old words and make them work. Musicians should understand > >> this. Some words are going to be dissonant and others consonant in > >> their effect. The mantras have survived because they work and can be > >> refined to very subtle levels (due to the vowels they use). Try > >> that > >> with the word "boat" which won't refine very well. > >> > > > > MMY claims, and such is my experience, that there is no limit to how > > refined a > > mantra can get. > > Well this should have been a warning sign. Some real bad info there. > If you would have bothered to learn some mantra shastra you'd soon > find that the levels of mantra subtlety do have a very specific > delineation and levels. It's only by mastering these that one masters > the length of dive. Any mantra that ends in the nada-bindu, like all > the TM mantras, should end in soundlessness. Otherwise you're simply > not fully transcending. Thus the technique fails--esp. if you languish > in a laya indefinitely without resolve. >
What soundlessness? What not-soundlessness? You're getting all interested in making sure that I use your terminology without asking what my experience is or isn't. Fact oif the matter is, ALL thoughts "end with soundlessness." The question is, does the "soundlessness" last sufficiently long for you to note this as you return from it, or was it too brief for you to note? > > > For that matter, while perhaps TM mantras facilitate the > > refinement process due to some innate nature, I believe that ANY > > mental > > device, not just a sound, can be used to refine perception to an > > arbitrarily > > deep level. > > This would violate basic laws of mantra science, but hey, whatever you > think. It's an impure tradition, hobbled together by a megalomaniac, > so it probably won't hurt to add some more weird shit. > Ah yes, the laws of mantra science, which only you and people you agree with can know anything about. Lawson
