--- In [email protected], defenders_of_bhakti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "hyperbolicgeometry" > <hyperbolicgeometry@> wrote: > > > > ---Effortless or not (nothing in the world is "absolutely" > > effortless btw); > > Yes. > > > the key point is Transcendental awareness. If it (pure > > Consciousness, Self-awareness), occurs for you regardless of the > > amount of effort, excellent. > > Yes. > > > Having exposed the primary goal, the question of effort is > > important in distinguishing TM from other traditional forms of > > meditation which require forced attention on the mantra.
> > The fact that something - a method - is effortless is not > > necessarily "good" unless it fulfills an objective: here, > > Transcendental Consciousness. Countless endeavors are nearly > > effortless but don't produce the results in question. > > I agree. Actually, I was just trying to poke some fun on > the 'walking meditation' supposedly more effortless than TM > according to some here. (wonder though if this is true for > overweight people;-). And the confusion regarding meditation with > props (like Vaj's thesis that only objectless meditations could be > truely effortless), effortlessness, and intention. Any meditation > technique, by definition, uses some kind of induction, some > instruction to follow. > > Compare that to sleep: > Is there a difference between unintentional sleep (e.g. during > meditation or TV), intentional sleep (going to bed), sleep with > props (like a pillowcase), and 'canned' sleep (when you count sheep > to sleep in, or follow a ritual like using a prayer)? If you follow > Vacs argumentation, there should be a big difference in all these > forms. I'd say the difference is in the length of time it takes to go from full wakefulness to sleep. In the case of TM, I'd say the "induction" method for sleep corresponds to whatever you do before you close the eyes: shut the door of the room, turn the phone off, pull down the shades, maybe do asanas and pranayam, arrange the pillows if you use them, put the clock where you can see it, and sit easily. Actually falling asleep corresponds to the mantra arising after you close the eyes. When TM teachers compare TM to going to sleep with regard to effortlessness, I've always understood them to be referring to what happens *after* the induction. I don't believe that either the intention to meditate or the fact that you've been given instructions means effort is involved. Induction is settting conditions favorable for TM *to happen*, just as with sleep. Going to sleep *happens*; it isn't something you *do*. > > I also don't see, why classical mindfulness, not using a prop > (mantra), would be therefore more effortless. After all focusing ones > attention, be it on the breath, ones environment (the moment), ones > activity, or ones internal thought-processes, is just an induced > activity as well, otherwise there would be no need for instruction or > a retreat to learn it, it would be just a spontaneaus occurance. So, > IMO, TM being an induced form of meditation, using props (mantra) > could be just as effortless, while mindfullness, not using props, > could still be with effort. Using props or not, has nothing to do with > effort, just in the same way as using a pillow-case or not, has > nothing to do with the spontaneity of sleep. > > > In [email protected], defenders_of_bhakti <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], defenders_of_bhakti > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Could you describe in a bit more detail the effortless > technique > > > > > > you claim you learned there? > > > > > > > > > > Glad to. It was a walking meditation that involved > > > > > paying attention to what was going on internally > > > > > and externally. > > > > > > > > Isn't unintentional walking effortless per se? Or is there a > > > > difference between intentional effortlessness and unintentional > > > > non-effort, in the same way as easy is not the same as > effortless, and > > > > detached is just different to non-attached? Is it enough that things > > > > are effortless, or do we have to experience the effortlessness as > > > > well? Could anybody please explain the difference to me, as I am > > > > getting confused. > > > > > > Btw. being the non-doer, it is not 'I' who does the effort, rather the > > > effort simply happens, that is is unintentional and therefore truely > > > effortless. > > > > > > ------------------------ 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/
