--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> 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. > My 2 cents: The whole discussion is besides any point. There are "agendas" beneath the surface here driving all kinds of pseudo-metaphysical and semantic hogwash. Take the oxymoron of a so-called "monistic method" as posted by Vaj as a case in point. "Monistic Method!" - are the batteries in our bullshit meters flat? Or take your own triumphant "See Judy - you've just admitted TM is INTENTIONAL" - as if anyone ever in any world would ever dream of proselytising an "UNINTENTIONAL" method/technique. No, "it's about pedagogy, stupid", not the turgid, scholastic re- hashing of dualistic versus monistic metaphysics. If you mention meditation to many ordinary folks, they will typically say something such as "Oh, I don't know that I could do that. I don't think I could *still my mind* and concentrate". MMY addresses that reservation with his technique and his teaching. I think he did that very well and I think it would be churlish to deny it. The response "No, anyone can practise this meditation because it is easy and simple. It does not demand concentration or a struggle to control your mind" is reasonable and true. As a result vast numbers of people have taken up meditation who would not otherwise have done so. Was that a unique contribution of MMY? Well in my youth I spent a lot of time trying to find out about meditation. Probably I just scratched the surface. But it is a fact that all the "techniques" I ever came across involved either a) concentration b) visualization c) "techniques" of no-technique a la Watts/Krishnamurti. For all I know there may be gold in them-there hills, but I found MMY's teaching refreshingly original at the time. And simple is not necessarily not profound. So whether "effortless" *means* effort-less is not the point. If you offered Sisyphus a motorized aid to get his boulder up the slope as an "effortless" solution to the problem, he would be an idiot to complain "No, no,no, see you said it was effortless but yet I have to push this ignition button! See! See! See!". What a dozo! As in all language "effortless" or "easy" or "simple" are relative terms whose meaning comes mostly from what they deny or rule out than from what they *assert*. (Oh yes, and another thing! The talk of easy, simple natural etc is also meant to make the important point, from a teaching point of view, that TM or meditation is not a "skill". You needn't worry about whether you have an aptitude for it, or whether you can *master* it) And that's my rant.
