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

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