--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 9, 2006, at 2:12 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > >> > >> On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:00 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > >> > >>> I genuinely want to know which techniques out there are > >>> effortless and do not require concentration. > >> > >> You must've missed the "TM is not effortless" thread here > >> sometime ago. > > > > I recall a really hilarious post from you that purported > > to show how the TM checking routine "proves" TM is not > > effortless. > > > > Oddly enough, you canceled that post not long after. > > Funny I don't recall that.
That *is* strange. When I asked you whether you'd willing to repost it on alt.m.t, or have me repost it if you didn't want to bother looking for it, you went ballistic: ----- On 2005-05-20 12:25:06 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Say, Vaj, yesterday you made a long post to Fairfield > Life analyzing the TM checking instructions in an > attempt to show where effort is involved. > I'm not posting to Fairfield Life, but I have a few > comments to make if you'd like to repost it here, > or would give me permission to do so. Actually it was not about checking, and no YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO POST IT HERE OR ELSEWHERE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. This material is copyrighted by me, for me. Any violation by publishing it elsewhere will constitute violation of said copyright on this already published item. ----- It was, of course, about checking; you quoted gobs of the checking procedure (although you did so quite misleadingly, collapsing the algorithm in an attempt to make your point). You even went so far as to *copyright* it. You sure must have thought it was important at the time, but for some very strange reason you freaked out at the idea of reposting it to alt.m.t. Right after I'd asked you to repost it or give me permission to repost it, you zoomed over to FFL and canceled it. And now you don't remember it at all. How *very* odd, when it seemed to be such a huge deal at the time. > Although once the point was made clearly, > there was little else to say--although some people love to keep > arguing beyond reason. Ah, but the point wasn't made at all. You seriously misinterpreted a good part of the checking instructions you had posted. <snip> > > What *exactly* did he say? I've heard that what he said > > was "TM is effortless effort." > > PR as part of one the quantum mechanics spiels no doubt. I wonder why you have such a difficult time answering questions directly. But I gather you don't know what he said after all. And no, of course it had nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It was in response to a question about effort in meditation. > > I would maintain that those who don't think TM is > > effortless *are not doing it effortlessly*. > > I would maintain they are not familiar with real effortless > meditation and simply enjoying their easy meditation method, that's > all. On the basis of your post using the checking procedure to "demonstrate" that TM involves effort, it's crystal clear that you never got what is really meant by "effortless" or why no effort is involved in TM. Which means you almost certainly were not doing it effortlessly in the first place. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
