--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: <snip> > > 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.
I could be wrong, but I've never seen Curtis or Vaj claim that "monkey mind" involves effort. I'm not sure that's what Edg is saying either. To whatever degree thoughts require effort to arise, could we agree on this: With TM, we don't use any greater effort to think the mantra than we do any other thought? > 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." Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, then. When someone asks you what your name is, do you have to exert effort to discriminate between "Barry" and all other names before telling them your name is "Barry"? If someone asked you if your name was "Lawson," would you have to exert effort to decide that it wasn't? Sounds like angels on the head of a pin to me. 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. We're not "pretending," Barry. What is "obvious" to you isn't necessarily obvious to everyone else. Indeed, they may find something else "obvious" that you don't get at all. And in any case: "I do not admit the possibility that any point of view can be 'right.' "What I would acknowledge is that your point of view is just as valid as mine." > In other posts YOU have admitted that there is > subtle or minimal intention involved in coming > back to the mantra. We admit that, too. 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. "Effortless" doesn't just apply to coming back to the mantra. > 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. If the context Rick provided for that quote is accurate, it would appear MMY was doing a bit of exception-handling, not stating the basic principle of TM. (BTW, the quote by itself tells us bubkes.) > 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. There's nothing "WRONG" with it unless it's inaccurate. Has nothing to do with the "sales brochure" in any case; it's personal experience. But here's the thing: There's a *spectrum* of effort, from the most subtle to the most intense. If you want to insist that TM involves effort, where on that spectrum does TM fall compared to other techniques?
