--- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > > > Vaj, You haven't a clue about the practice of TM. > > Intersting opinion but WRONG. :-) > > > > >> > >> Really, in terms of the technical description of how TM is practiced > >> in the initial technique--it's not truly like 'any other thought', as > >> one is enjoined to maintain mindfulness (or smriti to use the actual > > > > WRONG. No one is "enjoined to maintain mindfulness." That would > > require effort. TM is effortless. > > You weren't told to wait for the mantra? You don't remember to return > to the mantra when you're back in thoughts? > > You need to get checked!
"Maintaining mindfulness" implies effort. It is not TM and is not the same as coming back to the mantra as effortlessly as any other thought. > PS: Any technique cannot, by definition, be effortless. This is a > common TM fallacy. All it indicates is you've been indoctrinated in a > untenable belief and you fell for it. MMY actually admitted at Estes > Park that TM is not "effortless". It's just a marketing spiel parroted > by people who really aren't that familiar with meditation. > I never heard of such BS as you're pumping out here, today. My TM practice IS effortless and the hundreds of people I've checked have had effortless meditation during checking. Maharishi never said TM requires any effort other than effortlessly picking up the mantra as effortlessly as any other thought. Do you interpret this to mean Maharishi is ADMITTING TM requires effort? You're way off base on that one, Buddy. Further, TM IS effortless and just not a marketing spiel and yes, I am VERY familiar with effortless meditation, everyday twice a day since 1972. Unless, you have actually practiced TM, and it doesn't sound like you have, you're just pontificating about something you don't know anything about. I don't know what meditation you practice, but I'd be surprised if you've ever had an effortless meditation a day in your life. > >> technical term) both as the mantra first arises (waiting or > >> "monitoring" for the mantra to "appear") and one must be mindful to > >> return to the mantra--otherwise one would potentially end up never > >> returning to the mantra, but remain distracted for the entire > >> session! > > > > WRONG. "The mantra may change in different ways. It can get faster > > or slower, louder or softer, clearer or fainter. Its pronunciation > > may change, lengthen or shorten or even may appear to be distorted > > or it may not appear to change at all. In every case, we take it as > > it comes, neither anticipating nor resisting change, just simple > > innocence." > > Read what I said again, you missed the point. > > > > >> This is not like any other thought. The level of mantra repetition > >> where mantra continues continuously like a spontaneous thought > >> actually is ajapa-japa: no effort or smriti, just constant ongoing > >> awareness of mantra 24/7/365. > >> > > > > WRONG. "When we become aware that we are not thinking the mantra, > > then we quietly come back to the mantra. Very easily we think the > > mantra and if at any moment we feel that we are forgetting it, we > > should not try to persist in repeating it. Only very easily we start > > and take it as it comes and do not hold the mantra if it tends to > > slip away." > > Non sequitur. Your response has nothing to do with what I'm saying! > > > > >> Technically the style of mantra repetition where one has to return to > >> the mantra still is called "faulty" or "defective" in Sanskrit since > >> one has to constantly re-engage the mantra as it is lost. It's one of > >> the lower levels of mantra practice. > >> > > > > WRONG. This is a gross misunderstanding of TM. > > No, it's actually the level of mantra practice where you must > repeatedly return to mantra. You just were just never told about > mantra practice...sorry. Not my fault you still parrot these > misunderstood ideas. > > > "Losing the mantra" just means the mind has transcended thought, > > transcending even the mantra as a thought, as in "no mantra and no > > thought." The mantra is a vehicle for transcending thought, a > > comfortable, effortless ride to the transcendent. When your vehicle > > arrives at its destination, you don't think, should I stay in the > > car? get back in the car? drive the car some more? No. If you can > > think a thought, you effortlessly pick up the mantra. "Losing the > > mantra" is just the inward stroke of the mind and a thought is just > > the outward strokes of mind due to normalization of the physiology. > > Nothing more. If "one has to constantly re-engage the mantra as it > > is lost" it's not TM. It places the practitioner is a deplorable > > quandary, "Jeez, I lost the mantra AGAIN and I HAVE TO re-engage it. > > Shit! They told me this was effortless, I must be doing it WRONG." > > And so goes the doubt about one's practice and TM down the tubes. > > Time for checking, doncha know. > > I'm talking about the "outward" stroke RD, not the inward one. If you > keep returning on the outward stroke it's because your level of > attention was faulty...another thing you were apparently never told... > > ...here, have a cracker Polly. >
