Comment inserted below... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" wrote: > > <snip> > > > I haven't been following this thread, and Vaj has > > > probably quoted this, but on my TTC (Estes Park, > > > 1970) I clearly remember Maharishi quoting the Vedas > > > as saying, "Be easy to us with gentle effort." > > > [I wrote:] > > Which (as I've pointed out before) is virtually > > meaningless without context (both of the quote > > itself and how MMY was using it). > > > > To claim that this quote in and of itself, without > > those contexts, constitutes an "admission" by MMY > > that TM involves effort is just off the wall. > > > [Rick wrote:] > > The context was that MMY was saying that TM does involve > > a sort of effort, but that it is such a gentle effort > > that we don't use the term effort. Thought is effortless > > once it starts flowing, but if we're thinking about > > one thing and need to be thinking about another, (e.g., > > we're looking out the window and we should be listening > > to the lecture), some will is involved in shifting the > > attention back. We all know the analogy of the attention > > spontaneously shifting to the more pleasing melody, but > > it doesn't always work that way. The mind may prefer > > daydreaming to coming back to the mantra, but > > nonetheless, we apply gentle effort, an act of will, to > > come back to the mantra. > > This appears, then, to be a matter of "exception > handling," when we're aware we aren't attending to the > mantra but don't want to go back to it. > > You say, "If we're thinking about one thing and need > to be thinking about another...some will is involved > in shifting the attention back." > > But you left out a step: first we have to become aware > that we're not thinking about what we "should" be > thinking about. For that to happen, the previous > train of thought has to come to an end for long enough > for that recognition to arise. You can't have two > different thoughts at the same time.
Judy, about this statement that one cannot have two different thoughts simultaneously: Have you never had thoughts and mantra together? Or thoughts and sutras? Or, outside of meditation, thoughts of one thing while looking at another? It's an accepted part of TM practice that we have multiple thoughts all the time. There's an instruction for that situation in the checking notes. But TM teaching aside, it's a common experience, is it not? If you change your mind about that point, would it make a difference in what you wrote below? > > What MMY was addressing, it seems from what you say, > was the thought, "Oh, I'm not attending to the mantra. > But I'd rather pick up this interesting train of > thought again than go back to the mantra." > > If you choose not to go back to the mantra, then > you've stopped meditating. If you don't want to > continue meditating, then, yes, it may take a bit > of effort to resist the inclination to stop. > > I don't think anyone would claim that resisting the > desire to pick up the interesting train of thought > rather than go back to the mantra involves a little > "gentle effort." > > But that's not--contrary to what Vaj has been > claiming--an acknowledgment on MMY's part that TM > isn't fundamentally effortless. It may not *always* > work that way at the specific point at which you are > to return to the mantra, but when it doesn't it's the > exception, not the usual way it works (at least in my > experience). > > In any case, the "effortless" notion applies > primarily to how to entertain the mantra *when you're > entertaining it*. > > Did you see where Vaj claimed it was wrong to allow > the mantra to become "fuzzy" and vague, by the way? >
