> > 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?
I like the notion, that at the subtlest level, the descrimination between object and samadhi, or feeling and samadhi, these fine levels: I believe is at the basis of the 'Maharishi Effect', The experience itself of samadhi, somehow effects the 'not samadhi'. So, samadhi has not only a healing effect on the individual, but on the cosmic level as well...
