--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > It just occurred to me (tangentially) that part > > of the confusion between TM and other mantra > > meditation techniques has to do with the erroneous > > equation of these two principles: > > > > --It's better to go back to the mantra if > > you realize you're thinking something > > other than the mantra. > > > > --It's better to be thinking the mantra > > than thinking something other than the > > mantra. > > > > These are seemingly almost identical statements, > > but the distinction is crucial. In the case of TM, > > the first applies, but not the second. > > > But in both cases there is the quality > of "better."
"Barely" better. And only by the most miniscule degree possible. Less is more, in this case. > > Pursuing that "better" by coming back > to the mantra involves intention. > Only so much as you might need to make a conscious choice. Even thbe knowledge that the mantra might be better is enough. The knowledge that you should or should not think about pink elephants is enough. The intent NOT to think the mantra is basically the same as the intent TO think the mantra, so is "intent" or preference important, or simply som acknowledgement at some point in your practice that the mantra has a unique status in your feild of thought: first amongst equals, as it were. > And it involves it whether you believe > statement #1 or statement #2. If you > did not believe in that "better," there > would be no reason to come back to the > mantra. But you DO believe it, so you > have the intention to come back to it. > > Thank you, Judy, for having made the > case for TM being intentional. > Do NOT think of that pink elephant darn it. Lawson
