--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- 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.
Right. There's doing TM, and there's not doing TM. I'm saying if it isn't effortless, it's not TM. > > > > 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?" Well, see below. It's already no longer innocent if somebody is insisting TM requires effort. I don't know how you can respond to that innocently. > 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. Jeez. No, it isn't. 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. This doesn't have anything to do with experiencing samadhi or not, or whether TM is superior or not. It has only to do with what the *method* is. Vaj has been characterizing the method incorrectly, and based on his mischaracterizations, making incorrect claims. This can be very convincing if you don't spot the mischaracterizations. > > 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. What's counterproductive is using effort in TM. I did say in that in the early stages there may be some very slight effort until the automatic cycle is established. > > > > > 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. An expectation of what? And how would it affect one's practice? ------------------------ 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/
