--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > 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." > > For the record, sparaig, I don't give a flying > fuck what "MMY's own words" were -- about this > or about anything else. > > I don't consider him an expert or authority > about much of ANYTHING, including TM. > > That's what you guys don't seem to understand > in this discussion. WE DON'T CARE how Maharishi > describes TM. We are providing our OWN descrip- > tions of TM, based on our own experience of > not only TM but a wide range of meditative > techniques, and not only the experience of > practicing them but of teaching them. > > I am quite comfortable with "least effort" > or "minimal effort" or even "almost nearly > effortless" to describe the process of coming > back to the mantra in TM. What I am not > comfortable with is "effortless." > > What Maharishi says based on HIS "analysis" > doesn't mean shit to me. > > What I'm talking about is what I say, based > upon MY analysis. > > You can use the word "effortless" if you want. > I cannot. It is not true, based on either > theory or my own experience. >
But it is true based on theory AND my own experience. That you don't see this as relevant in a discussion of whether or not you actually practice TM as taught by MMY is quite telling to say the least. > Now go argue about this with someone who gives > a fuck. :-) > Obviously you give a fuck or you wouldn't be on this forum. Lawson
