--- In [email protected], "Paul Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MMY is on record as advocating freedom from the restrictions of the > binding power of speech. I am sympathetic with anyone who attempts > to reconcile his various statements about mantras, the effects of > meditation, the genesis of TM, et al.
And perhaps you have some examples of inconsistencies with regard to what he has said about mantras? I would guess that by advocating "freedom from the restrictions of the binding power of speech," MMY is referring to the fact that a good deal of spiritual knowledge can only be roughly approximated in words. It's another way of saying "The map is not the territory." If you get too attached or "bound" to words, you can create serious misunderstanding. Just as one example, take the Catholic Mass: you can describe it quite accurately as a ritual in which Catholics believe they are eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. But if you attach yourself to those words alone, you would have good reason to assume that Catholicism is a cannibalistic religion --a very "restricted" view. And even when you go deeply into the theology of the Mass, such that the idea of cannibalism is shown to be absurd, the very innermost core of it is said to be "a mystery": transsubstantiation, or how the bread actually *becomes* Christ's flesh and the wine his blood--the mechanism not being reducible to words. To truly know what the Mass is to a devout Catholic you must free yourself from "the restrictions of the binding power of speech." With regard to the relationship between the bija mantras and Hindu deities, to say they're the "names of gods" is pretty much the comic-book version, and a very primitive comic book at that, akin to thinking of the Catholic Mass as a cannibalistic ritual. There *is* a relationship, but it's vastly more abstract than "names of gods" would suggest. Just to hint at the very tippy-top of the iceberg, bear in mind that in MMY's teaching, (1) "gods" is a term that refers ultimately to laws of nature, elemental forces of the manifest universe; and (2) these laws of nature are said to be inherent in one's own consciousness. Another (related) idea is that of rishi-devata- chhandas, the Knower, the process of knowing, and that which is known. The gods, or "devas," are in that context *processes of knowing*, the means by which that which is known comes into being--which could also be described as laws of nature. (This is the source of the notion that "You create your own reality"--but as usually understood, that's also a comic-book version.) One might say that the bija mantras are abstract sounds that embody the devas (as opposed to their *names*--Shiva, Lakshmi, and so on), in the nama- and-rupa, "name"-and-form, formulation. "Name" as a translation of "nama" is misleading in this context. If the bija mantras are devas in this sense, and devas are processes of knowing, what is it we are doing with them in meditation? The mantra is the object of attention, or chhandas, that which is known, as we use it in meditation. But the mantra is also deva, or process of knowing--in other words, attention itself. So in putting the attention on the mantra, we are, in effect, mantra-ing the mantra. No wonder it tends to become more and more subtle and then disappear! <snip> > > > 'When he devotes himself and meditates on the name and form > > > (NAMA AND RUPA) of the LORD, he begins to experience some > > > ANANDAM and also the Grace of the Lord in every walk of life. > > > This experience of Peace and Anandam is Sadhana. And Sadhana > > > naturally increases his devotion to God and makes him more and > > > more attached to Him. Thus he develops intensity of Raga for > > > the ISHTAM. Gradually, this final Raga goes on increasing and > > > this increase of Raga and Love for the ISHTAM enables the > > > Grihastha to feel the presence of his 'ISHTAM' always with > > > him, in all his ways of life, in all his thought, speech and > > > action.' If you think about it, the above is another way of describing the development of enlightenment through TM. Just as the "seven states of consciousness" TMers are taught here is the comic-book version of enlightenment for Westerners, the above is the comic-book version of enlightement for devout Hindus. I don't mean to use "comic book" as a term of derision here. It's just meant to suggest a necessary simplification and concretization of something that is virtually infinitely more abstract. But if you get hung up on "the binding power of speech," you may be unable to loosen your understanding so as to begin to encompass the abstractions that underlie the speech. 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/
