--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "vajradhatu108" > <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Robert Gimbel" > <babajii_99@> wrote: > > > > > > (snip) > > > "I'm honestly curious. This effortlessness thang > > > > > is obviously a *serious* hot button for both you > > > > > and Judy. You both react as if you had been > > > > > personally attacked every time it comes up"... > > > > > > > > > The 'Effortless Thang' is a hot button indeed; > > > Indeed, once again you have found, single handily: > > > "The Hot Button"... > > > And why is it such a hot button, I am wondering? > > > Well perhaps, it's because the whole notion of effortlessness; > > > Until Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, came onto the scene; > > > Was not a widely understood concept or belief... > > > And still causes much confusion, as explified in your piece... > > > > > > Actually this is a very ancient idea. > > > > I just returned from retreat and one of the texts I took with me > was _The Authenticity of > > Spontaneous Presence_ which deals explicitly with Unity > Consciousness and contains a > > whole section on effortlessness. One of the criteria you can look > for to see if the system of > > practice you are using is effortless is to see if it is based on > the Two Truths, a relative and > > an absolute. > > > > If it is, it cannot be effortless. > > > > In regards to transcending, the Expansive Space Great Completion > Tantra says the > > following: > > > > "Although the external appears as "object" > > Clear, non-conceptual, and so forth, > > Although the mind does nothing at all > > It's charmed, allured by the taste of the transcendent, so > > Eliminate just that internal superimposition. > > This is clear." > > > > Effortlessness cannot exist with a View that presupposes or works > with "two" (truths) but > > only where Spontaneous Presence exists as Inseparability. This is > epistemologically > > impossible where there is an overlay or superimposition as in the > above quote. > > > With all due respect, you are confusing effortlessness stated as the > goal of action with instructions given for meditation.
Actually I am not. If it was non-dual, there would be no goal, there would be no inward stroke. That's like saying "I had a non-dual visit to the supermarket", all the while ignoring you had to drive from your home and then return to your home after "being one" with the market. > > When Maharishi has spoken about the absolute and relative areas of > life, he has done so to explain what the adherent will do during > meditation. He could've just as easily started with the end result, > where there is no duality, but that doesn't provide any explanation > of the process. This is incorrect on a number of counts. Never mind it's a known that yoga-darshana and samkhya-darshana are dualistic approaches as are any methods which rely on a support (e.g. a mantra, the breath, etc.). I didn't invent this. But your naivete in this area is also shared by many TMers, so you do have some company. :-) If it was non-dual, there would be no "doing". Furthermore practice of TM relies on a principle known as the principle of increasing charm. Attention is naturally drawn to the transcendent. This charm constitutes a subtle form of delusion: the mind's attraction to something. This delusion constitutes an overlay or superimposition (to use Shankara's word for it). This is part of the reason that seeded samadhi is inferior to seedless samadhi--seeded samadhi relies of some action or process and it is tainted by that karma (or action). It's still caught within the chain of action. Patanjali and it's numerous supporting texts explain this fact in considerable detail. > > While it is important to understand the process in context of the > end result, it is easier to explain it as a duality, so that the > practitioner of the meditation understands that they are evolving > from one state to another. Otherwise the practitioner will either > get confused or lose interest. > > All spiritual practice tries to move the practitioner to the same > place. It does? That's a new one! > However it must be clearly explained how to get there. > Whether this is seen as a gradual clarification of one Reality, or a > linear path from the relative area of life to the Absolute is not > important. However we tend as human beings to learn things in a > linear way, hence Maharishi's explanation of the process of TM as a > process recognizing both relative and absolute areas of life (when > in fact the reality recognized when both are integrated is just one > Reality). > > To continually bring up the supposed dualistic nature of the path of > TM ignores the descriptive term inherent in TM: Transcendental. A > Transcendental practice is by definition non-dual. No, to transcend implies a dualism. If it was non-dual there'd be nothing to "transcend"! :-) And of course it is because of this duality that Shankara was able to defeat in debate all those of yoga-darshana and samkhya-darshana yogins. 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
