--- In [email protected], defenders_of_bhakti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > First this: > > > Ok...you can go back to arguing about whose techniques > > and belief systems are "best" now. I just wanted to > > correct your misstatement of what I've said. > > Not my involvment, you know very well.
Ok. :-) *People* can go back to arguing about whose techniques and belief systems are "best" now. You do not have to include yourself in that category if you don't want. :-) > > Just a couple of points: > > <snip> > > > You seem to have missed the posts in which I mentioned > > that the techniques I'm talking about are *not* mindfulness, > > which IMO definitely has a specific intent. In the techniques > > I'm talking about, there is no intent and nothing to focus > > on. It's merely a process of just *noticing* what is already > > going on, *not* focusing on it or directing it in any way. > > Nothing is "induced," nothing focused upon; > > Sorry to disagree, but the instruction 'to notice something' is > certainly directing awareness. It most certainly is an induction as > well. As the 'attention' is directed, it is also a form of > mindfulness, maybe a rather easy one. Whatever floats your boat. It's possible to see things that way. I see a distinction between the techniques I've learned as 'mindfulness' and the one I was describing, but you don't have to. > > the only instruc- > > tion is along the lines of "notice what is going on rather > > than distract yourself from it." > > Yes, but it directs awareness. The instruction 'not to distract > yourself from it', indeed uses subtle effort. Whatever floats your boat. It's possible to see things that way. > > The instruction is needed only because most people in the > > world *do* distract themselves from what is going on inside > > them and around them, constantly. > > That's why meditation is needed. Not "needed," just interesting for those who find its benefits valuable. Not even *useful* for those who have no interest in those supposed benefits. > > The point of this simple > > technique is that there is a value in not doing so. > > Sure. I don't disgard it at all. But whatever Vac said about > TM is applicable there also. Whatever floats your boat. It's possible to see things that way. I DON'T CARE whose technique is "more effortless." IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME AT ALL. I don't even particlarly LIKE the more effortless techniques. I'm a fan of concentration techniques. I leave the "my technique is more effortless than your technique" debate to those who give a damn about it. Me, I consider such discussions in the same philosphical ballpark as "my dick is longer than your dick," in that the *outcome* of such debates seems to be primarily of interest to the person who's terrified that they have a tiny wanger. :-) ------------------------ 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/
