--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > In any
> > > > > style of meditation where you have an object of focus
> > > >
> > > > Which excludes TM, since TM doesn't involve focusing.
> > > 
> > > In terms of process, it is the point you return to 
> > > irregardless.  
> > > Focus here being an english trans. of the Sanskrit "dharana" 
or  
> > > "focus of attention" in the "official" movement translation of 
> > > the word. Since you claimed to be familiar with TM, I assumed 
> > > you would be conversant in their language. Apparently that is 
> > > not the case.
> > 
> > But, what mantra do you return to?
> 
> You don't have to be so TM-centric and bigoted, man.
> Many techniques of meditation don't even *use* a
> mantra. But you still "come back to" something.

I'm aware that many techniques don't use a mantra. I was referring to 
the assumption that one knows what one's mantra is in the first 
placein the sense that most people would think of "knowing." As like 
as not, my "mantra" is often a vague hum that is only identifiable 
as "my mantra" because its the most convenient label handy for 
whatever it is.

> 
> IMO it isn't the mantra per se that enables
> TM to work; it's the "coming back to, " the element
> of focus (even if it's "soft focus," as in TM). The 
> choice of TM mantras was come to by trial and error, 
> and changed radically during MMY's early years. You
> can find them in many books, and chances are that's
> where Maharishi found them. There is nothing partic-
> ularly magical about them.

IMO, its the *process* that enables TM to "work." 

> 
> In other words, you responded to Vaj's point with
> a non-sequitur intended to dismiss it and suggest 
> that TM is "best." Again. And again, you're better 
> than that.
> 

In other words, you responded to MYpoint with a non-sequitur designed 
to prove that you and Vaj are correct and I am wrong.

> Just my two centimes...I'm just trying to suggest
> that there is room for people to believe different
> things about meditation and how it works. Chances
> are that *none* of them are correct. Acting as if
> one is correct and all others are incorrect seems
> to me a great way to develop a lot of negative
> karma, not to evolve.
> 

Whatever. We were talking about the ole "Transcendental Meditation as 
taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." Vaj and you both indicate that you 
have not only different beliefs about what makes TM work, but 
different beliefs about what TM *IS* in the first place. Which goes 
back to MY point that any "theory" that attempts to explain TM must 
preserve the anything goes/effortlessness nature of the technique, or 
it morphs into something else.

> <snip to>
> > Insomuch as TM involves awareness, then you can say its 
> > mindfulness. Beyond that, depends on the definition of 
> > mindfulness. 
> 
> Correct. Earlier, I used a more limited definition of 
> mindfulness; but as Vaj and others here seem to be using
> it, it's a term that applies to the application of
> selective attention, period. As such, I would have to
> agree that most forms of meditation, including TM, fall
> into that category.
> 

ONly within the most vague and open-ended definition of "selective 
attention."

> > As I pointed 
> > out, a perfectly valid TM session could involve thinking 
> > the mantra once and being distracted by internal/external 
> > phenomena for the next 20 minutes.
> > 
> > You seemed to believe thatthat could NOT be a valid meditation 
> > session, or so your "good luck with that" response suggests.
> 
> I don't think Vaj ever suggested that sitting lost in 
> thought wasn't "valid." As I read what he said, he's
> suggesting that IN HIS OPINION it isn't particularly
> *effective*. I would agree. That doesn't mean that we
> didn't understand or "get" the TM dogma that surrounds
> this issue, merely that we don't buy it.

Fair enough, but *I* buyit becuase it DOES seem to work quite 
effectively for little ole ADHD me.

> 
> There's a difference. Believing in a different theory
> doesn't mean that the other person is flawed, or that
> they didn't hear and understand the same things you
> did when you were listening to the TM teachers who
> were parroting what they were told to say. It just
> means that the other person has chosen not to take
> what they were told as some kind of cosmic truth, the
> *only* way that things could be described. Vaj is 
> expressing an opinion; he's entitled to that opinion.
> And *his* opinion has no effect whatsoever on you 
> or your own opinions unless you allow it to.
>

Sure, whatever, but once you start assigning value judgements to one 
particular experience over another, you're no longer practicing TM.

My point with Judy as well...







------------------------ 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/
 


Reply via email to