Hi, Many thanks for your thoughts.
And yes, effortless is a far better term than aimless for meditation like TM, and the one for which I was blindly groping for! I suppose I term something religious as opposed to philosophical if what it says is couched in phraseology which implies the existence of things not apparent or provable. Or, alternatively, if its methods cannot be practised without belief in its tenets, which is to say cannot be 'extracted' from the tradition without loss. (A friend of mine is a Tibetan Buddhist, and I shy away from that practice for this very reason.) Which is what attracted me to TM, and how leaves me suspicious, given the religious nature of the mantras. If there are any forms of mediation that you might consider fall into (my!) categories of effortless and not religious, I'd be most grateful if you could point me in their direction... Thanks, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "TurquoiseB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:21 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Advice Sought --- In [email protected], "John Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm. I'm not sure there is a question in the above, so much as > a seeking of thoughts and opinion. Hi, John. I'll offer some thoughts and opinons, which should be regarded as nothing more. I speak as a former TM teacher, but one who has not been part of the TM organization since the late 70s and who has been involved in other forms of meditation and spiritual practice in the years since. > Is the mantra used of importance? I know that others here will disagree with me, but I personally feel that the mantra has pretty much the importance that the meditator brings to it. If the tradition stresses the privateness and the specialness of the mantra and the way it's trans- mitted, naturally the meditator is going to feel that the mantra (and the choice of which mantra) is of great importance indeed. On the other hand, I've spent some time around groups in which mantras are handled in a more cavalier fashion. For example, during a dharma talk a teacher might throw out a particular man- tra and invite the people in the audience to meditate using it. No ceremony, no pomp, no circumstance, more Joe Friday-like in Dragnet, "Just the mantra, ma'am." Naturally, if you learned to meditate using a mantra you received in such a fashion, you probably wouldn't have the same near-sacred regard for it as someone who learned, say, TM, might have for their mantra. As to whether the mantra "works" any better as a vehicle of meditation in either case, I have to say that I have seen no evidence that there is any difference at all. I have known people who received a "cavalier" mantra thrown out in a public lecture and have transcended deeply on it immediately, and consistently afterwards. And I have known people who have received a "pomp and circumstance" mantra and who are still not sure, after decades, that they've ever transcended at all. So my opinion (and that's all it is) is that the choice of mantra and the manner in which it is transmitted are not nearly as important as some traditions make it out to be. > If so, why? If not, why?! Dealt with above. > Do there by any chance exist other non mantra-based, non- > religious, 'aimless' meditations? There are certainly many forms of non-mantra- based meditation. For example, Zen meditations based on following the breath, many different forms of mindfulness meditation, etc. As for how "non-religious" they might be, that would be up to you and your definition of "religious." For example, I have spent a number of years studying Buddhist thought, and I regard it as a philosophy, and very much NOT a religion, but your mileage may vary. As for "aimless," there are forms of meditation that are as effortless as TM, but I wouldn't call any of them (nor would I call TM) "aimless." They all have *somewhat* of an "aim," and a method of achieving that aim. Pure aimlessness, in my book, would be akin to daydreaming, which I do not personally feel is the same thing as meditation. > Are my thought processes described above flawed? If > so, why and how? I don't think your thought processes are flawed, but I suspect you'll encounter a few people here who might suggest that they are. Don't be too concerned about it; they've been telling me that my thought processes are flawed for years now, and their comments plus a Euro will buy ne a coffee at the corner cafe. :-) I still think that the basic TM technique has value, not the least of which being that it is easy to learn and to practice. And I received much value from practicing it, and know that many other people have as well. I walked away from TM not because of any real problems I had with the TM technique, but because the TM movement was not offering me what I was looking for in a spiritual sadhana. So I think that you're on the right track by asking questions, and not settling for "pat" answers to them. What you end up deciding is your own personal concern, and I would not offer any advice as to what you should do, other than to say that 40+ years med- itating have convinced me of its value, no matter which method of meditation you practice. Good luck on figuring out which method suits you best. Unc
