Judy, I've saved your post for one of my last writing projects of the day, cuz, it's always a biggie for me to go toe to toe with you. I hope you sense my true desire to get some truths attended to, and if I'm offering falsities instead, I expect and honor your correcting of my errors. Please expect and honor my possibly being able to correct your possible errors also.
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: > <snip> > > > > To me, this thread is woefully needing a scholar to > > > > come forth and do proper battle with Vaj about what > > > > constitutes "effort." He's given some very clear > > > > statements that might be right or wrong, but they're > > > > precise and draw a well defined line in the sand. > > > > Others are merely kicking sand on his line instead of > > > > drawing their own lines and defending that their lines > > > > are more apt drawn. > > > > > > That's also bullshit. You haven't been reading what > > > we've been saying with any attention. > > > > Again with the "bullshit" word. Come on, Judy, haven't > > I been behaving well lately? Haven't I held back the > > personal attacks? Why attack my integrity with such > > vitriol? > > It's not your "integrity," it's your reading > comprehension. "Bullshit" here just means "nonsense," > not dishonesty. But you knew that the word "bullshit" had the connotation of "something a person with low integrity spews." Come on, I'm not all that pissed that you smacked me with an ad hominem zinger, so can you take a step back and admit that you enjoyed the act of taking a swipe at me? It's a human thing after all -- not a lot to admit to. That said, I do think you've got a neat word to focus on: nonsense. Please define it such that "what is spiritually nonsensical" becomes a phrase we both understand. To me, the ultimate non-sense is the Absolute. So if I'm approaching a grasping of non-sense from that angle -- hooray for me. And, if I'm more mundane and am really spouting non-sense in the "illogical conclusions" sense of the word, then shame on you for battering me -- a person of little wit. Be more gentle on those who come to you with less mental merit -- that's what gurus do, right? You're my guru, my instructor herein, right? Be more gentle. Don't be so impatient with my misunderstandings, and I'll come back to you again and again for edifications if you can muster them up. Finally, I do say again that you, despite the massive brain power you wield, do resort to ad hominems, and this is a mark of your intellectual frustration that you cannot somehow get Vaj or others to see the errors of their ways according to the gospel of Judy. Ya gotta buckle down and really try much harder to get Vaj's concept in a vice and hold them there while you sand off the bumpy parts. > > > For the record, I do think you've tried more than > > most to go toe to toe with Vaj, but you are so > > overwrought and obviously intent on besmirching his > > personality instead of competently countering his > > statements, that you are failing as a debater. > > Bullshit. Your continuing of the use of this word cannot be interpreted kindly. It simply is gratuitous bashing that's an attempt to create a negative emotion in me. How is that serving your apparent need to help others see the strength of your arguments? > > Here's my first post to him in this thread, which you > apparently missed: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: > <snip> > > Really, in terms of the technical description of how > > TM is practiced in the initial technique--it's not > > truly like 'any other thought', as one is enjoined to > > maintain mindfulness (or smriti to use the actual > > technical term) both as the mantra first arises (waiting > > or "monitoring" for the mantra to "appear") and one must > > be mindful to return to the mantra--otherwise one would > > potentially end up never returning to the mantra, but > > remain distracted for the entire session! > > One isn't "enjoined" to maintain "mindfulness" > in TM. So many have posted about this topic thus far, that I hope you've read the thread and know how I've been explaining that effort -- even faint effort -- is effort. Even if the mind has the mantra going along "by itself," obviously, that's actual chemicals being processed by the brain -- so on that very physical basis, the process of keeping the mantra going requires work to be done by the brain -- AND AND AND don't you see that if the mind becomes subtle enough it will become eventually aware of that effort in the background? Won't an enlightened mind be able to see the robot's clockworks are always "a tickin'" and that that "tickingness" is unavoidable? Isn't effortlessnes far more "the goal" of meditating rather than the "process" of meditating? Before you answer, read my below, where, ironically, I argue for ALL PROCESSES TO BE EFFORTLESS. > > The instruction is, "When you become aware that > you're not thinking the mantra..." That thought, > that one isn't thinking the mantra, arises of its > own accord, just like any other thought. In my > experience, that thought itself is what triggers > a return to the mantra; the mantra is the very > next thought to arise, automatically (in my case, > at this point it's not entirely clear that they're > even two separate thoughts). > > And being "distracted" by other thoughts is part > of the "outward stroke" of TM, not something to > be avoided by monitoring whether one is or isn't > thinking the mantra. I think you've started making a case for the miraculousness of the thinking process. To me, if the awareness is placed on the thought "I'm not thinking the mantra," it is an act of grace from the beyond-actingness-Absolute. A lucky thingie. A blessing. Haven't you had whole meditations in which you have to admit, "Geeze, the twenty minutes are up, but I only said the mantra once." ??? That's proof to me that it truly is beyond my control, and that if the mantra comes, it is a gift, not something one earns. Thus, the placing of the attention on one object of consciousness is, ultimately speaking, something God did to your mind, not the result of practicing the TM technique. The mantra is sorta of a "place to hang out," a "process not unlike Turq's cafe," where eventually the scantily clad nubile wet-slitters come by and whisk the mind to heaven. Heaven is amness, and the mantra is one hot babe going home, so follow her. Or, in your case, the mantra is one hunky stud who knows the way to a cool movie, an elegant dinner, and a bed with clean sheets! > > > This is not like any other thought. The level of > > mantra repetition where mantra continues continuously > > like a spontaneous thought actually is ajapa-japa: > > no effort or smriti, just constant ongoing awareness > > of mantra 24/7/365. > > This, obviously, is not TM, has nothing to do with > TM. I think Vaj did too little work and should have vastly expanded that text. I would guess he would contend that when the mantra is going "effortlessly," then, by his tradtions, that's called japa-japa. If, ultimately, it is found that the mantra is a process that is always ongoing but that it is the attentioning that waxes or wains, then Vaj will be pretty right on with the above blurb. I assert that the initiation is a rite that brainwashes the person "enough" such that the mantra is established as an all time reality -- a process that's kept perculating on some back burner until the mind shines a light on it. That's why I'm all for the puja -- it give the initiate a lot of moments where the significance of the spirituality of the process impacts the learner and gets a lot of neurons established such that their work can be spotted like a pilot light that only needs a gush of gas to ignite to a full blown mental experience. Putting the attention on the mantra is "finding it on the back burner and turning up the flame." That is, putting the attention on the mantra will quickly bring up its loudness to the point where is stands out against the buzz of all the other processes. The TM instruction is to do this (note the word "do" -- effort) as gently as one takes any other thought lest the mantra be poofed up to something way too loud. Instead, the instruction teaches us that the mantra is like a bookmark. We go to it, not so much because it is a delicious thought, but that we "last left it on a subtle level of mentation to which we'd like to return immediately instead of having to take a loud mantra and once again appreciate it at ever more refined levels of manifestion until we get back to where we last left the mantra. > > > Technically the style of mantra repetition where one > > has to return to the mantra still is called "faulty" > > or "defective" in Sanskrit since one has to constantly > > re-engage the mantra as it is lost. It's one of the > > lower levels of mantra practice. Here we see Vaj having a preference for contemplation of a processing of the brain that deals with the omnipresence of Self. He's not putting down TM as a technique (although he has done that in the past with his worries about the negative effects of partial mantras,) so much as he's saying he prefers to reside in the expansiveness of Being instead of riding a mantra to Being. > > If the goal is constantly to maintain the mantra, then > losing the mantra would indeed be a "defect." > > But that's not TM. If TM can be said to have a "point," > it's to *lose* the mantra--either by going off on a > train of thought (which is said to be the release of > stress), or by transcending. Here, I think you've misunderstood Vaj. He's not advocating concentration or holding onto the mantra or resisting changes in the energy level of the mantra's manifestion. He's okay with losing the mantra, cuz that's a normal thing. He's just saying that he has a technique that allows him to see that the mantra is a background processing that's always there 24/7/365. I agree that losing the mantra is a sign that some sort of excitation has occurred -- enough so that the subtle mantra is washed out by other 'loud thoughts." I'm even willing to believe -- not know -- that this is an indication that "when dust flies, something good is happening." Vaj is merely saying that he's got an ability to be aware of the mantra no matter how thick the mind is with the dust of "healing activities of the stressed mind." > > You're doing a fine job, Vaj, of documenting that TM > *is* unique. >
