> <snip> > > The best candidate for something truly effortless was > > when once the mantra was started "it repeated itself" > > without one feeling like one had had a hand in the > > continuing of the repetition. To me, this is merely > > "less effort, not effortlessness," and it masks that > > the "background intent" of the person to "do mantra," > > was obviously also "working," and was there to jump in > > when one noticed that the mantra had been lost, once > > again, amongst the "pandemonium" of the ordinary > > thinking process. Meditation is not simply taking > > the mantra, it is much more like tending a garden and > > knowing how to keep the weeds from growing next to > > the flowers. > > Judy wrote: > See, now, I don't agree with everything Edg says > here, but it would never occur to me to wonder > whether he'd ever done TM or understood what it > involved. He and I have somewhat different > experiences and somewhat different understandings > of the TM process, but we're both clearly *talking > about TM*. > > Vaj is not. > How could anyone who was taught TM by the Maharishi think that what the Marshy taught was concentration on a mantra or repetition of a mantra? If there is only the Purusha, where would the 'garden' grow?
Vaj is correct, when he says that most of the posters here are engaged in describing dualistic meditation; but, when TM practice is described in the context of the Adwaita Vedanta, it makes perfect sense: when the Purusha witnesses itself, there is no effort involved by the Purusha - the Purusha does not act. "Two birds sit on a tree; one eats the fruit, both bitter and sweet; the other bird looks on." Mundaka Upanishad: http://tinyurl.com/dao2jq
