--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM.
FWIW, journalist Martin Ebon, in one of his '70s
books dealing with TM, in discussing TM vs. Benson's
method, quotes Charlie Donahue at some length to the
effect that TM is *non*intentional:
"One thing about TM that is terribly subtle and
difficult to get across, is that the mechanics of
our meditation method are nonintentional. You
cannot characterize [TM] by some rule that's
consistently applied....[With Benson's technique]
there is the consistent application of a rule,
[whereas with TM] you just don't have such a rule.
...[We have] an explanation as to why {TM] cannot
be intentional....Transcending means experiencing
without an object [or] attention-free consciousness.
In order to experience attention-free consciousness,
we cannot engage in manipulating attention. The
kind of attention that's a prerequisite for any
consistent application of a rule is disallowed."
> There is nothing "wrong" with effort when it is
> understood this way. But you don't use the term
> "effort" with people first starting TM because for
> them the term "effort" means something completely
> different. The intellect discriminates based on
> intent. When it makes the "final" discrimination of
> Self/no self then it is truly effortless. But as long
> as consciousness identifies with any object of
> experience (and for most longterm TMer's it is a very
> subtle sattvic state of mind-golden ignorance!)the
> effort/intent is needed to facilitate this
> discrimination...... I just realized that this is the
> key as to why so many longtime TMer's are not
> Realized. They initially utilize the intent of
> effortlessly thinking the mantra for so many decades,
> burning out many, many samskaras/points of
> identification utilizing the natural tendency of the
> mind to move towards greater pleasure. Subtle states
> of mind are VERY enjoyable,very sattvic. But now the
> mind gets stuck in this sattvic condition. Pure
> consciousness is not sattvic (nor is it tamasic or
> rajasic either) so effortlessness will not facilitate
> Realization at this subtle level of mind. Seems like
> the dharma of TM is to bring you right to the edge of
> pure consciousness, but that final crossing-over is
> the subtle Self/no-self discrimination. Perhaps more
> lontime TMer's need to practice Ramana's experiential
> (not intellectual) technique of Self-inquiry.
>
> --- coshlnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > --The bottom line is effectiveness, not effort in
> > itself; but those
> > of us who appreciate the subtleties and
> > effectiveness of TM, have
> > come to realize that it's effectiveness is coupled
> > with a virtual
> > level of total effortless; at most, conceding that
> > Vaj's point about
> > the mantras is only half true. Effort in TM is not
> > due to the
> > technique, but rather a. incorrect practice, and b.
> > unstressing.
> > But even if there were effort (say TM was more like
> > a traditional
> > hard concentration technique)...; one must examine
> > the results and
> > compare the results to the teachings of the rather
> > mediocre Gurus,
> > such as Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, who has no single
> > technique that can
> > come close to the effectiveness of TM, effort or
> > not.
> > ....the trig. man (ps. thanks for your e mail, Vaj,
> > but I deleted it
> > before reading)...in anticipation of utter
> > nonsense..
> > I posted the Buddhist quote and entitled it
> > "effort required in
> > Buddhism" knowing that I would get a "rise" out of
> > you...mission
> > accomplished!...but for those requesting my point,
> > simple: various
> > Gurus (such as certain Advaitins & direct
> > transmission, "immediate
> > Enlightenment" Dzogchen masters) claim to be
> > teachers of purely
> > effortless Sadhanas; but this is all talk, little
> > substance. At the
> > end of the day's Sadhana, there's the next day, and
> > the next, and the
> > next....etc; and all such techniques with varying
> > degrees of effort
> > amount to an expenditure of energy in terms of
> > commitment,
> > perseverance, and placing one's Sadhana above other
> > concerns. That's
> > the effort. To conclude, TM is effortless but
> > culturing the nerveous
> > system takes time.Ineffective techniques and Gurus
> > are practically
> > useless! Why even bother with such mediocrity? Do
> > the Pepsi/Coke
> > test, find out for yourself.
> > Of course, in thousands of people; one can find a
> > few people who go
> > crazy in the process. There are a number of errors
> > in your logic,
> > Vaj. Shame on you!...
> >
> >
> > - In [email protected], Vaj
> > <vajranatha@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:13 PM, sparaig wrote:
> > >
> > > > But you somehow miss: use of any attractive
> > object [of attention].
> > >
> > > Like a mental mantra?
> > >
> > > No, never missed it.
> > >
> > > ANY object and transcending subject, object and
> > the-process-in-
> > > between is subtle effort. Grow up and get over it,
> > ok?
> > >
> > > Don't they have any Hindus in Arizona, Jersey or
> > Sweden you could
> > > talk to?
> > >
> > > I have artist's ready to make the new Zero Tarot
> > card, the only
> > > question is: Judy or Lawson or Peter K.?
> > >
> > > We're ready for the new fool. Will the real New
> > Fool step up?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > --------------------~-->
> > See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
> >
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/0It09A/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/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
> >
> >
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
______________
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> Access over 1 million songs.
> http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
>
