On May 28, 2008, at 8:34 PM, sparaig wrote: >> 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?
The nadanta, the true end of sound. The mantra then tranforms from sound into something else altogether. > >> >>> 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. No, but any guru doling out mantras still worth listening to. If you don't grok mantra's own science, you probably shouldn't be giving them out in the first place.
