--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This could be #1 in a "Effort in Meditation FAQ".
Except that it isn't at all clear that TM even involves *intent*. Charlie Donahue, for one (per my quote in a recent post in response to Peter, which of course Peter will not deign to comment on), has said explicitly that TM is nonintentional. And Vaj, as usual, has been completely unable to actually *discuss* these issues, substituting floods of vicious disdain. Plus which, if Vaj endorses Peter's idea that one doesn't use the term "effort" with people just starting TM because it means something completely different to them, it's curious why Vaj would have written earlier, "The 'effort' myth is probably one of the greatest falsehoods perpetuated by TM adherents and marketeers [sic]" and "I've seen others directly question this false belief as TMers tried to push this dogma on other, more knowledgeable yogis." In other words, if Vaj is here agreeing with Peter that it's just a matter of not using a term that would confuse neophyte TMers, why did Vaj call it a "falsehood" and a "false belief" that TMers "try to push" as if it were some kind of deliberate deception? > On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: > > > Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. > > 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. This last part is pretty incoherent. Peter appears to be saying that longtime TMers don't experience pure consciousness, but that certainly hasn't been the case with me. A lot of this discussion is deep in the semantic weeds, but folks are avoiding the need to sort out the nuances of the meanings of terms. The result is intractable confusion.
