--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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.
>
Your rant rings true for me, Richard.
R.G.
