--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > categorically deny that these states of consciousness are possible for > > > > anyone doing TM.You could even opine that TM practitioners can't go > > > > beyond asmita because they indulge in laya during meditation.> > > > > > > > > Imagine Vaj on one extreme and Bevan Morris on the other joining hands over > > a joint-declaration about the positive value of meditation without a little > > reconciliation of position. Evidently the ultra-buddhists like Vaj out in > > the world are saying TM can't happen and is no good, the ultra-TM'ers are > > arguing that buddhism by definition is concentration in practice and hence > > concentration as a meditation practice is no good (second TM introductory > > prep-lecture). Could they ever get together on something larger? > > > > > > It's funny, each given their own experience, could ultra-Buddhists and > ultra-TM'ers get together to issue a joint-statement that meditation is good > and that meditation not only ought to be practiced but that it should be > practiced, for instance as public policy in all public schools for good > reasons of neurophysiology. > >
Without a fundamental fight over which meditation would be better? It's been going on for 50 years ever since Maharishi came to the West marketing meditation in the meditation market-place. > > > > > > Almost couldn't believe my ears when I once heard 'laya' pronounced > > > > by Maharishi as the Finnish word 'läjä' (j = y in yes; ä ~= a in cat), > > > > meaning 'a heap'. The expression 'lehmän läjä' (a cow's heap) has a > > > > somewhat specialiced meaning: > > > > > > > > > > Do the finnish have a version that rolls off the tongue like, 'bull-shit'? > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/6hkztgg > > > > > > > > It's true that according to the last suutra of aSTaadhyaayii > > > > (a a [sic!]), short a-sound in Sanskrit is somewhat reduced, > > > > but the reduction is usually so small that I can't hear > > > > the qualitative difference between a and aa (long a). I gather > > > > native speakers of English might be able to hear that difference > > > > more easily, because vowel reduction is such a prominent feature of > > > > English. > > > > > > > > > >
