--- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Behalf Of sparaig > > > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:02 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <rick@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > > [mailto:[email protected] > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> ] > > > > On Behalf Of sparaig > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM > > > > To: [email protected] <mailto:FairfieldLife% > > 40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , Vaj <vajranatha@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This could be #1 in a "Effort in Meditation FAQ". > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. > > > > > > > > Except, one need not have intent to do TM. > > > > > > > > Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: "Be easy to > > us with > > > > gentle effort." He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about > > how TM did > > > > actually involve "gentle effort." > > > > > > > > > > Heh. Not always in my experience. Does this mean that I'm doing TM > > wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > Gentle means gentle. Just the intention to entertain the > > > mantra is a gentle effort, as compared with just sitting > > > there letting random thoughts run amok. > > > > That dichotomy is a specific situation that sometimes > > occurs: when you realize you've been having thoughts, > > but the mantra does not then come of its own accord. > > > > For me--and I believe Lawson has said the same thing-- > > the realization that one has been having thoughts is > > (or often is) indistinguishable from the mantra. > > > > As Lawson points out, the checking notes say that when > > one begins to meditate and the mantra arises on its own, > > that is "just the right start" to meditation. > > > > Sometimes it's necessary to use "gentle effort" to > > jump-start the mantra at the beginning of meditation > > or after a train of thought has subsided. So in that > > sense you could say TM involves "gentle effort." To > > suggest that it involves "gentle effort" *throughout*, > > as a rule for how to entertain the mantra, is just wrong. > > > > Reading this post by Michael Dean Goodman: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/131314 > > ... it seems the assumed starting point is always mind's "thinking" > level. > > Given the inward direction of TM-practice it would seem that clinging > to an over-intellectual schematic approach might become a problem as > thoughts becomes feelings, feelings settles down into sense of > my-ness, then am-ness, and is-ness. > > What detailed commentaries has Maharishi offered on the process below > the "thinking" level of the mind. > > Vaj, TB and Paul Mason need not respond. >
Good point. "Thinking the mantra" might only qualify as "thinking" in comparison to pure consciousness. By comparison to pure consciousness, ANY non-pure-consciousness might be described as an "object of perception" even though said "object" is well beyond any description save "not samadhi." Likewise, having an intent might be so subtle that it would be hard to identify as "intent." If someone wants to assert that my intent to think the mantra is too subtle for me to notice, how can I argue?
