--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > But, yes, while the mantra is attended, other processes > > > by the millions are happening too, and any of them could > > > become an object of attention, and many of them will > > > convincingly be "better fruit that beguiles the monkey- > > > mind to jump off of the mantra branch." Thus the > > > instruction to favor the mantra. This is effort -- > > > this is a philosophical/intellectual PROCESS (work being > > > done) of coming to a conclusion. The conclusion is: I'll > > > decide to favor the mantra -- not all these other tempting > > > processes. > > > > And no effort involved in favoring something over > > something else, unless you insist that mere discrimination > > by definition, is effort. > > > > In which case the monkey mind never is without effort and > > you've just changed MMY's entire analysis of TM and how it > > works. > > Duh. > > Insert mental image here of a light bulb suddenly > lighting up over sparaig's head. :-) > > This whole DISCUSSION has been about Curtis and > Edg and Vaj changing Maharishi's entire analysis > of TM and how it works! That's the whole POINT. > They don't AGREE with MMY's analysis. > > Neither do I. I don't think it's worth arguing > about the way you people do, but it's OBVIOUS > to me that "mere discrimination, by definition, > is effort." I think the only reason you're > pretending it isn't is because you're attached > to the "effortless" dogma-phrase that was > repeated to you so often. > > In other posts YOU have admitted that there is > subtle or minimal intention involved in coming > back to the mantra.
Nope. We admit that, too. Admit all you like. We take > it one step further and say that that changes > Maharishi's analysis of TM and how it works, > and makes it inaccurate if he (or we) continue > to use the word "effortless." You seem to want > to hold onto that word, while *admitting* that > it isn't completely correct. So does Judy. > Nope. > We just don't understand why you would want to > do this. Maharishi's OWN "analysis" is incorrect > or insufficient; he admitted it himself in the > Estes Park quote posted here so often. Why do > you persist in hanging on to it. Limited yes, incorrect, no. Its a matter of perception afterall, I perceive the mantra as being 50.00000001% more important than some other thought. You can perceive it as 50.00000001% less important and come to the same technique, but either way, its that minimalist nature of the effort and intent that is important, not the fact it exists. Least in the direction of less. > > What is WRONG with "subtle or minimal effort?" > What is WRONG with TM being slightly intentional? > Is it WRONG because it conflicts with the sales > brochure? That's what it looks like to me. > Actually, you've misread what I said as far as I can tell. And MMY's own words that I recall are "least effort in the direction of less effort." L
