There is a loss of "experience" when one slips into sleep - if during this time there is transcendental consciousness there is no recollection of it. In meditation the loss and recovery of experience happens during a shorter period and one becomes aware of this change or gap. But interestingly the sense of self or wakefulness during TM is not lost, as in sleep. That, and a sense of finer quality of thinking and breathing (one rare occasions amazingly fine), has featured in my "subtler" experiences during TM. Hard to see how these experiences wouldn't be overshadowed by grosser awareness, as in CC though. Another important consequence of "experiencing" finer values within the mind is a great boost in general positivity in oneself and the world - a new glow, somehow. But actually most of the time during TM it's a struggle, paradoxically, to remain effortless in the process because even the faintest preocupation with "thinking" a mantra eventually creates tension and headaches - a very discouraging effect. Yet not "thinking" a mantra seems counter the instructions. I end up having to re-invent the process of meditation anew each time as nothing seems to "work" effortlessly more than a few times in a row. Have tried countless "checks" to no avail. Have tried your approach of accepting the mantra as just very "abstract" but often doubts creep in that I'm not doing "TM" after all!! Also can't see how further advanced techniques can help as the pronounciation of the mantra has just gone now and any attempt to retrieve it, however gentle, ends up in headaches. If I weren't hooked on MMY's Gita philosophy I'd given up ages ago!!
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We've already been through this, BillyG. I'm going > to explain one more time how I understand MMY's > teaching, and that'll be it; I'm not going to argue > with you about it: > > If you're aware *of* bliss as a "something," as > blissfulness, that isn't no thoughts/no mantra, > by definition. > > You may recall that MMY has said, "Bliss is not > blissFUL." To experience blissfulness, one must > have awareness *of* it, as a "something." > > Transcendental consciousness-by-itself (samadhi) > is *pure* bliss, as opposed to blissFULness. There > is no subject/object distinction present in TC-by- > itself, so no way to be aware *of* blissfulness. > > That doesn't mean one doesn't experience > blissfulness before and/or after TC-by-itself. But > in TC-by-itself, one *is* bliss. There is no "me" > to say, "I am blissful." That happens only after > TC-by-itself has ended and the subject/object > distinction has returned. > > Pure bliss is utterly abstract, not something > one is aware *of*. It is awareness itself, > awareness without an object, pure Subject, > pure Self, pure Being, no-*thingness*. > > Pure bliss is the absence of thingness, of > distinctions, of awareness *of*. That's what > I meant by "It's like nothing" (no-thing) above. > > If one experiences waking-state awareness along > with pure consciousness, one may experience > blissFULness, but that isn't TC-by-itself. > Waking-state awareness is not present during > TC-by-itself. The capacity to experience > blissfulness is not operative in TC-by-itself. > "(Pure) bliss is not blissFUL." > > BlissFULness occurs only when one is able to > sustain some waking-state awareness *along with* > pure consciousness, after repeated cycles of > TC-by-itself alternating with waking state (the > yellow cloth analogy). This is a more "advanced" > state than TC-by-itself, i.e., cosmic > consciousness, or "witnessing" if it's temporary. > > So if you're experiencing blissFULness, that's > terrific. But it isn't samadhi (TC-by-itself), > no thoughts/no mantra, as MMY defines it. > You've gone *past* that stage and have begun > to integrate pure Being with waking state. You > may still experience samadhi (TC-by-itself) in > meditation, but you experience blissFULness > only after you come out of TC-by-itself, when > you're experiencing waking-state and pure Being > together. > > If you want to define samadhi differently than > MMY does, fine, but you can't tell people who > are going by MMY's definition that they aren't > experiencing samadhi, as MMY defines it, on the > basis that it doesn't involve blissfulness. > That's just not how he uses the terms. > > "Bliss is not blissFUL." >
