On Mar 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > 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. > > The *content* of a communication isn't what makes > it privileged, so this is a non sequitur.
Actually Rick did observe, on-list, his own interactions with Mahesh, and M's response/advice reading these issues. These consitituted not only online communication, but specific advice on TM and forms of mindfulness training--how to maintain focus without falling into torpor or laxity. This is an extremely important fine-point because not only to we have a record of them occurring, but we also can observe that checking instructions were not modified to include these suggestions, nor were instructional advice in the initial technique. > > But to address this on its own terms: > > Since the checking notes explicitly say that sleep > during meditation is *not* a problem, no wonder they > didn't find a "solution" in checking. That sleep is > not a problem *is* the answer as far as checking is > concerned. > > It appears that the only "problem" they had in this > case was that they were incorrectly viewing sleep > *as a problem*. > > As to "laxity," the only "laxity" I'm aware of in the > TM context is not bothering to return to the mantra > once you become aware you're off it. So the "problem" > there is simply not following the instructions for > meditation. > > Or did you have some other sense of "laxity" in mind? But for others obviously it was--and they received advice as to how to transform that laxity. > > <snip> > > > 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. > > Well, no, of course it hasn't been answered. One > quote of MMY quoting something from the Veda, without > any context, does not constitute an answer to the > question of whether TM is effortless. Maybe not for you. See my most recent post on this very topic. > > <snip> > > The point is if you EVER have to bring you awareness or subtle > > intention BACK, you are patching. > > I don't disagree with that. What I'm saying is that > you never have to (except perhaps in the very > beginning, and I'm not sure that's an accurate > characterization of what happens even then--but I'd > have to go into my theory of what the TM mantras are > to explain my uncertainty on that point). My most recent post touches more fully on this subject. > > > 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. > > Note that I didn't mention "transcending" in my outline > of the cycle. > > Whether one "transcends" or not during meditation is > irrelevant to the point I'm making, if by "transcending" > you mean experiencing transcendental consciousness by > itself. > > But "transcending" is used in another sense in TM, i.e., > the attention moving to more subtle levels of thought. > Just closing the eyes--even if one has not sat down to > meditate--results in transcending in this sense. That's a very gross redefinition--particuarly if you look at what this means in regards to the root texts from which this meditative tradition comes. IMO a lot of problems issue from the fact that while M. often posits his View from the POV of Advaita Vedanta (albeit a reworked version of Advaita Vedanta) his method and path are from the dualistic Yoga-darshana. That disconnect between View (non-dual, Advaita Vedanta ) and Path (dualistic yoga) is bound to cause problems, particularly if you are not aware of the inherent disconnect in Path NOT corresponding to View (darshana). > > > > > 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. > > True, but not necessarily "sad," if you mean they're not > experiencing transcendental consciousness by itself. If > the process never becomes automatic, that *is* "sad," but > only in the sense that the person hasn't really got the > knack of TM. > > > In the way you are describing some > > conditioned or subconsciousness mental substratum is necessary to > > "automatically" come back. > > Perhaps, but if it isn't conscious, to call it "effort" > is a misnomer. Since it actually represents a species of "mindfulness", it is appropriate to use "effort". See latter post for further explanation. > > > > 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. > > The solution to the first is to continue to practice. > It should eventually become automatic, because that's > the nature of the process. As to the method being "not > for them," that's a matter of psychology, not of the > method itself. Irregardless, once "close placement" is attained, it's still a form of effortful mindfulness. > > > I would suspect for > > many people they will realize they are either caught in outward- > > stroke thought chains > > They can only realize that they *were* caught in > outward-stroke thought chains, not that they *are* > caught in those chains. That realization arises only > when the thought chain has come to an end--and then > it arises automatically, spontaneously, without effort. > > There's nothing wrong with outward-stroke thought > chains in the TM context. That's only because of the disconnection between a dualistic Path and a Non-dual View. ------------------------ 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/