--- In [email protected], "Richard M" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], 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. > > 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.
And for the record, I have no problem with any of it. Well said. I'm sorry I got sucked into this petty bullshit by those who live for petty bullshit.
