--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <jstein@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kill that Buddha, Judy. You're addicted to absolute > > > > effortlessness. > > > > > > > > > > <grin> > > > > > > > > I was serious Judy. > > > > > > I know you were. I was appreciating the comment. > > > > > > > Perhaps TM is always effortless for you in the > > > > way that you have described, but you presented it as somehow > > > > *superior* to someone who doesn't have that experience. > > > > > > Depends what you mean by "superior." All I'm saying > > > is that this is what TM *is*. I don't give myself > > > any credit for having this experience. > > > > By contrast, you implied superiority: you said anyone who didn't > > have that experience hadn't gotten the knack of TM. > > Certainly not *personal* superiority. But if you want > to do TM, it's "better" to get the knack of it than > not, right? That's the only sense of "superiority" I > had in mind.
That's what I meant. Superiority and inferiority of a knack don't make sense at all in the TM context. > > > > I just think that claiming that TM inherently involves > > > effort is a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who buy > > > into it. I'm using my own experience to argue against > > > this claim because it's the only experience about which > > > I can speak with any authority. > > > > My own take is that MMY struck the balance he intended to strike > > between expectations of effort and non-effort. If you believe > > that "real" TM is always effortless, you are lead into one trap. If > > you believe that "real" TM always involves at least some subtle > > effort, you're lead into another. > > You may be right with regard to people who are just > learning; "innocence" is important. And innocence isn't important for those in the know? for those who have got the "knack?" Kill that Buddha, Judy. It's similar to those who tout their own technique as superior in inducing samadhi for longer periods as though this means anything.I only mention the research on samadhi in TM because there doesn't seem to be ANY such research on other techniques not because someone who is experiencing samadhi during TM more often than someone who isn't has "gotten it" in some waythat the other person hasn't. > > Where this started was my mention of Vaj's post > some months back in which he analyzed the checking > procedure in such a way as to *prove*--he thought-- > that TM *requires* effort. (Unfortunately he deleted > the post after I asked him if he'd repost it to > alt.m.t, so we can't refer to it now.) > > In such a context, I think it's important to challenge > that view. > > MMY strikes a balance by not insisting on either > effortlessness or effort; but when somebody's > pounding the table and insisting that it *does* > require effort, the only way to strike a balance > is to pound the table and insist that it's > effortless. (And hopefully be able to back it > up.) More constructive is to cite instances in your own meditative experience where effort was not *required*. Keyword is *required*. Trying to argue whether or not the technique is 100% effotless at all times is futile and actually 100% counterproductive. > > > > > That's a subtle expectation, right there. > > > > > > Ooh, I dunno, not during meditation itself, it > > > isn't. Effortlessness in the TM sense *can't* be > > > an expectation, it can only be an experience (or, > > > as you often point out about transcendence, the > > > *absence* of experience: there's no "there" there). > > > > Meditation isn't a light-switch, in my experience. You don't start > > meditating and somehow leave all expecations behind (unless you do > > the big-T transcend immediately for the full 20 minutes). Your > > expectations about TM outside TM practice certainly influence what > > goes on *during* TM practice. > > Yeah, but as I say, effortlessness in the TM sense > *can't* be an expectation. You can only expect > *something*, you can't expect *nothing*. Or to put > it another way, any expectation of effortlessness > that you might have wouldn't be effortlessness in the > TM experiential sense. An expectation is > intellectual; effortlessness isn't. Apples and > oranges. > But you are the one who said that people who don't have YOUR experience haven't "gotten" TM. That's an expectation, by definition. ------------------------ 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/