> > ...there are no mantras used in TM practice
> > - we use only non-semantic tantric 'bija'
> > mantras.
> >
Bhairitu wrote:
> What about the advanced techniques?
>
You get only one 'bija' mantra with TM - in the
advanced techniques, just words or phrases, no
more bijas. For example, 'namah' is just a
Sanskrit word added for 'fertilizer' to water
the 'root' bija. In the 'Night Technique' advanced
technique, there are no bijas, words, or phrases,
just a short visulization.
> That's not a bij mantra. When I talk about
> TM'ers being Saraswati worshipers, what exactly
> am I talking about?
>
The bija mantra for Saraswati is actually a
Tantric Buddhist bija for Tara. Apparently some
babas overheard this at a Buddhist yoga camp meet
and got it all mixed up with the Shakti, and it
then became all topsy turvey.
> > If you insist on chanting 'Om Namah Shivaya'
> > then you're probably not practicing TM.
> >
> Yes because it was not taught as a part of TM
> (though may have been on some of the Primodial
> Sounds tapes). But it is just as valid if not
> a powerful or more powerful than using just a
> bij > mantra. The bij mantras or aksharas are
> used to enliven longer mantras. I think why
> MMY used them as first techniques (recommending
> the advanced technique to replace it after about
> a year and a half) because they don't take much
> to be lively and any idiot can initiate someone
> with them and get some results. Clever but again
> lacks the safety and balance that other programs
> have.
>
This all makes perfect sense - apparently you have
learned a lot from your Pilot Guru!
But I'm not sure which 'programs' that have the
'safety and balance' you're talking about.
If any 'idiot' can use the TM bijas and get good
results, why would they want to drive all the way
to Oakland in order to get some more, longer,
nonsense syllables? Simple seems much better to me
- one short bija can get you all the way to
Nirvana and TM training that you can get in most
large cities. Go figure.
> > If you wanted to, you could chant any number
> > of Sanskrit phrases, but why go to the bother
> > of memorizing Sanskrit phrases - you might just
> > as well use English for that purpose and repeat
> > 'I bow down to the old fakir'. There are no
> > 'magic' words in Sanskrit.
> >
> The vibratory influence.
>
That's really the question - exactly how is a
nonsense syllable 'enlivened' and made 'lively'?
In a previous post I mentioned that the Swami
Muktananda most likely got his Shiva mantra by
reading a booklet. Apparently his teacher,
Nityananda, gave out no bijas or tantric techniques,
so how do you make a bija lively by reading it in
a book?
If transcending is a mechanical process, all a person
would have to do is *be aware of being aware* - no
mantras, no bijas, and no guru - that's Adwaita.
> English is frequently lacking in that. When I was
> learning Sanskrit some of the slokas would
> spontaneously invoke visions of ancient times
> which were sometimes a little disconcerting
> though cool.
>
So, it may be that some people don't need any 'fert'
at all - they were born enlightened. All they need
is an intellectual understanding of the concept of
non-duality and bingo, they have an awakening; they
are free and immortal on the spot. No striving is
then involved at all - just realization.
