On Mar 10, 2006, at 5:49 PM, authfriend wrote:

> > > If there weren't such confusion, you'd be able to
> > > respond straightforwardly to the points I'm
> > > making, pro or con.  Not only can you not do so, you
> > > repeatedly attempt to shift ground or otherwise
> > > obscure the debate.
> > >
> >
> > This is just another typical Judy "baiting" post. I shouldn't even
> > bother answering it, but alas, here I am again answering it.
> >
> > We do only have one quote, presumably from Mahesh, which Rick has
> > provided. My offline conversations are really, truly none of your
> > business.
> Of course, I never suggested they were.  I took a
> little jab at you when you mentioned the offline
> posts because, as I said, you're constantly making
> references to having had privileged communications.

I don't think what you referring to are "priviledged communications",  
they're simply people responding to the post reagrding some style of  
mindfullness or some simple adjustment that prevented "laxity" or  
sleep during meditation. It's an important problem--even in the dome  
in FF--so people responded affirming that. But all the people who  
responded *had* a problem *and solved it on their own*. Nothing in  
checking or the TMO provided an answer for them.

> In response, you appeared to contradict yourself
> by saying Rick had "posted it here."  No big deal,
> but I pointed out the contradiction.  It's not
> relevant to the discussion of effortlessness, only
> to your unwillingness to be straightforward.

This was a separate issue really. It came up twice before Rick's  
recent post on the topic. If there's a tension in the room and no one  
else brings it up, I will (unless it's something that has been  
exhaustively repeated again and again and again). I swear to god,  
boards I've been on only put me there for that reason.

> > You have your answer, now live with it. Stop desperately
> > trying to find some point here or there to distract.
> You're the one making a fuss over a minor jab, Vaj.
> And of course you still haven't resolved the
> contradiction.
> But I'm not interested in pressing that point.  I'm
> really only interested in the effortlessness
> question.

But that is the question that's been answered already. Therefore I  
have no need to lament or rehash.

> > It's not the big deal you want to make, it's subtle distinction in
> > types of meditation--and thus may not ever have any importance to
> > you if you remain a TM practitioner.
> Yes, it's a subtle distinction, but it's a crucially
> important one.  You completely miss the significance
> of TM if you think there's effort involved, even very
> subtle effort.

The point is if you EVER have to bring you awareness or subtle  
intention BACK, you are patching.

Conversely, if you sit down for your session and have the intention  
"I will sit for 25 minutes", you have the bare intention and  
transcend for 25 minutes and "come to" after those 25 minutes, then  
you have not "patched" at all. Then, once you can do that there are  
number of more degrees of refined intention to go.

> > Remember when we forget the mantra, we quietly come back to it.
> > It's a very simple, natural process.
> Do you not see the difference between "come back to"
> and "bring back to"?  "Come back to" is much less
> intentional. The TM verbal instructions can't completely
> avoid intentional language, but they come as close as
> they can.
> And the point *I* was making initially is that only
> when you've first begun the practice do you exercise
> even *that* much intention.  Later on the process
> becomes automatic.

For some people it does, for some it does not. Some people *never*  
transcend. Sad, but true. In the way you are describing some  
conditioned or subconsciousness mental substratum is necessary to  
"automatically" come back.

> At least in my experience, it goes like this:
> 1.  I sit down to meditate, I close my eyes.
> 2.  In a few seconds, mantra arises spontaneously.
> 3.  After awhile, I spontaneously realize my attention
>     hasn't been on the mantra.
> 4.  Mantra immediately arises spontaneously again.

For a good number of people this will NOT be automatic--either  
because they haven't repeated the "mind training" often enough to  
overcome their own conditioning or because this method is not for  
them or for a host of other possible reasons. I would suspect for  
many people they will realize they are either caught in outward- 
stroke thought chains or somehow back in the dualistic condition--and  
they have to have *at least* the intention to return to the mantra- 
impulse or even have to consciously re-introduce the mantra. You have  
to realize there is a group of people who will always be stuck here.  
You also have to recognize some people

And even if these people are "checked", you have realize--because  
they technique of checking is "canned", i.e it's a memorized script-- 
some people will fall outside this script. Eventually some will have  
to leave because of this.

Irregardless you are describing some conditioned or subconsciousness  
mental substratum is necessary to "automatically" come back.

> 5.  1-4 repeats.
> I don't "come back to" the mantra.  The instant I
> realize my attention hasn't been on it, I find that
> my attention is on it again.

That's fine for you...but it's not fine for everyone. Nor should we  
expect that it will be fine for everyone!

You are describing some conditioned or subconsciousness mental  
substratum is necessary to "automatically" come back.

In truly effortless meditation, NOTHING is altered, not even the eyes  
or the body--when something IS altered, these are some of the  
hallmarks of dualistic meditation. On the mental level intent =  
effort or as yogis prefer "the disease of effort".

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to