--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: <snip> > > > 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's bullshit because it's inaccurate. That's why I reproduced my earlier post to Vaj, in which I at least *attempted* to counter his statements competently and did nothing whatsoever to "besmirch his personality." You don't seem to have acknowleged that. > > --- 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 In that sense, merely existing in a body is "work" or "effort." I think that's sophistry in this context. -- 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? If there is effort, sure. My mind appaprently ain't that subtle, because I'm not aware of any background effort. And what does any of this have to do with Vaj's misrepresentation about the meditator being "enjoined to be mindful"? <snip> > 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." ??? Nope, but that's irrelevant. I accept that it's been your experience. > 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. Could be, but it don't butter no parsnips in terms of what I've been trying to get across. If it's something God did to my mind, then God also did something to my mind to make me decide to learn TM and to sit down and meditate twice a day. Fine with me; I do tend to think "I do not act at all," per Krishna in the Gita, is an accurate statement of how ultimate reality works (although it isn't yet my experience). But it's not relevant to what I've been talking about. <snip> > > > 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. Sure. But the point is that you can't judge TM to be "defective" if that isn't its goal. > Putting the attention on the mantra is "finding it > on the back burner and turning up the flame." FWIW, I've said several times here that I suspect the bija mantras TM uses are built into the human nervous system as "processes of knowing." One isn't "given" a mantra; rather, one's attention is called to what has been there all along. Not sure if that's what you're saying, though. 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. Yeah, that isn't my experience, actually. At the point where I put the attention on the mantra, the only process that's going on is the thought, "I haven't been thinking the mantra." And as I've said, I don't even "put" the attention on the mantra; it's just suddenly there (by now, it's so subtle that "It's there" is almost meaningless; it ain't "loud" enough to stand out against anything.) The TM instruction is to do this (note the > word "do" -- effort) as gently as one takes any > other thought Whoops. The instruction is to *think* the mantra as effortlessly as one would think any other thought. But thinking "any other thought" has already been established as effortless. So semantically, at least, there's no "do"-ing involved. <snip> > > > 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 Of course he is, if he's calling it "faulty" or "defective." <snip> > > 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 holding up constant awareness of the mantra as a desirable goal and claiming TM is "defective" because it doesn't lead to that. <snip> 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." Fine, if that's what he's claiming, more power to him. Doesn't have anything to do with TM, though. He's also apparently talking about maintaining awareness of the mantra *in activity*, another huge difference from TM. Plus which, even just in meditation, if one's awareness of the mantra remains constant, it would seem one isn't experiencing transcendental consciousness by itself. You have to *let go* of the mantra (and any other thoughts) for that to happen. It's apples and oranges, or cricket and baseball, as I suggested earlier.
