[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness (Hot Button Issue?)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> >  wrote:
> > > Effortlessness cannot exist with a View that presupposes or 
works 
> > with "two" (truths) but 
> > > only where Spontaneous Presence exists as Inseparability. This 
is 
> > epistemologically 
> > > impossible where there is an overlay or superimposition as in 
the 
> > above quote.
> > >
> > With all due respect, you are confusing effortlessness stated as 
the 
> > goal of action with instructions given for meditation. 
> 
> Actually I am not. If it was non-dual, there would be no goal, 
there would be no inward 
> stroke. That's like saying "I had a non-dual visit to the 
supermarket", all the while ignoring 
> you had to drive from your home and then return to your home 
after "being one" with the 
> market.

Hi, and thanks for your response. So I am genuinely confused by any 
spiritual endeavor which as you say has no goal. From a practical 
standpoint I would add that then it has no value.

We can talk about differing points of view all day, and at the end 
of the day it seems that for a spiritual technique to have any 
value, the adherent must see some sort of positive consistent change 
in their life as a result of the practice.

Whether that is seen as a gradual refinement of one Reality that 
intrinsically and inextricably is them (non-dual), or whether it is 
seen as more of a linear path that they progress along (dualistic), 
doesn't matter as much as whether they continually gain greater 
fulfillment in life.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness (Hot Button Issue?)

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" 
> >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  (snip)
> > > > "I'm honestly curious. This effortlessness thang
> > > > > > is obviously a *serious* hot button for both you
> > > > > > and Judy. You both react as if you had been
> > > > > > personally attacked every time it comes up"...
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The 'Effortless Thang' is a hot button indeed;
> > > > Indeed, once again you have found, single handily:
> > > > "The Hot Button"...
> > > > And why is it such a hot button, I am wondering?
> > > > Well perhaps, it's because the whole notion of effortlessness;
> > > > Until Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, came onto the scene;
> > > > Was not a widely understood concept or belief...
> > > > And still causes much confusion, as explified in your piece...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Actually this is a very ancient idea.
> > > 
> > > I just returned from retreat and one of the texts I took with me 
> > was _The Authenticity of 
> > > Spontaneous Presence_ which deals explicitly with Unity 
> > Consciousness and contains a 
> > > whole section on effortlessness. One of the criteria you can look 
> > for to see if the system of 
> > > practice you are using is effortless is to see if it is based on 
> > the Two Truths, a relative and 
> > > an absolute.
> > > 
> > > If it is, it cannot be effortless.
> > > 
> > > In regards to transcending, the Expansive Space Great Completion 
> > Tantra says the 
> > > following:
> > > 
> > > "Although the external appears as "object"
> > > Clear, non-conceptual, and so forth,
> > > Although the mind does nothing at all
> > > It's charmed, allured by the taste of the transcendent, so
> > > Eliminate just that internal superimposition.
> > > This is clear."
> > > 
> > > Effortlessness cannot exist with a View that presupposes or works 
> > with "two" (truths) but 
> > > only where Spontaneous Presence exists as Inseparability. This is 
> > epistemologically 
> > > impossible where there is an overlay or superimposition as in the 
> > above quote.
> > >
> > With all due respect, you are confusing effortlessness stated as the 
> > goal of action with instructions given for meditation. 
> 
> Actually I am not. If it was non-dual, there would be no goal, there would be 
> no inward 
> stroke. That's like saying "I had a non-dual visit to the supermarket", all 
> the while 
ignoring 
> you had to drive from your home and then return to your home after "being 
> one" with 
the 
> market.

There IS no goal during TM. Sorry you missed that.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness (Hot Button Issue?)

[vajradhatu108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" 
>  wrote:
> > >
> > >  (snip)
> > > "I'm honestly curious. This effortlessness thang
> > > > > is obviously a *serious* hot button for both you
> > > > > and Judy. You both react as if you had been
> > > > > personally attacked every time it comes up"...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The 'Effortless Thang' is a hot button indeed;
> > > Indeed, once again you have found, single handily:
> > > "The Hot Button"...
> > > And why is it such a hot button, I am wondering?
> > > Well perhaps, it's because the whole notion of effortlessness;
> > > Until Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, came onto the scene;
> > > Was not a widely understood concept or belief...
> > > And still causes much confusion, as explified in your piece...
> > 
> > 
> > Actually this is a very ancient idea.
> > 
> > I just returned from retreat and one of the texts I took with me 
> was _The Authenticity of 
> > Spontaneous Presence_ which deals explicitly with Unity 
> Consciousness and contains a 
> > whole section on effortlessness. One of the criteria you can look 
> for to see if the system of 
> > practice you are using is effortless is to see if it is based on 
> the Two Truths, a relative and 
> > an absolute.
> > 
> > If it is, it cannot be effortless.
> > 
> > In regards to transcending, the Expansive Space Great Completion 
> Tantra says the 
> > following:
> > 
> > "Although the external appears as "object"
> > Clear, non-conceptual, and so forth,
> > Although the mind does nothing at all
> > It's charmed, allured by the taste of the transcendent, so
> > Eliminate just that internal superimposition.
> > This is clear."
> > 
> > Effortlessness cannot exist with a View that presupposes or works 
> with "two" (truths) but 
> > only where Spontaneous Presence exists as Inseparability. This is 
> epistemologically 
> > impossible where there is an overlay or superimposition as in the 
> above quote.
> >
> With all due respect, you are confusing effortlessness stated as the 
> goal of action with instructions given for meditation. 

Actually I am not. If it was non-dual, there would be no goal, there would be 
no inward 
stroke. That's like saying "I had a non-dual visit to the supermarket", all the 
while ignoring 
you had to drive from your home and then return to your home after "being one" 
with the 
market.

> 
> When Maharishi has spoken about the absolute and relative areas of 
> life, he has done so to explain what the adherent will do during 
> meditation. He could've just as easily started with the end result, 
> where there is no duality, but that doesn't provide any explanation 
> of the process.

This is incorrect on a number of counts. Never mind it's a known that 
yoga-darshana and 
samkhya-darshana are dualistic approaches as are any methods which rely on a 
support 
(e.g. a mantra, the breath, etc.). I didn't invent this. But your naivete in 
this area is also 
shared by many TMers, so you do have some company. :-)

If it was non-dual, there would be no "doing".

Furthermore practice of TM relies on a principle known as the principle of 
increasing 
charm. Attention is naturally drawn to the transcendent. This charm constitutes 
a subtle 
form of delusion: the mind's attraction to something. This delusion constitutes 
an overlay 
or superimposition (to use Shankara's word for it). This is part of the reason 
that seeded 
samadhi is inferior to seedless samadhi--seeded samadhi relies of some action 
or process 
and it is tainted by that karma (or action). It's still caught within the chain 
of action. 
Patanjali and it's numerous supporting texts explain this fact in considerable 
detail.

> 
> While it is important to understand the process in context of the 
> end result, it is easier to explain it as a duality, so that the 
> practitioner of the meditation understands that they are evolving 
> from one state to another. Otherwise the practitioner will either 
> get confused or lose interest.
> 
> All spiritual practice tries to move the practitioner to the same 
> place.

It does? That's a new one!

> However it must be clearly explained how to get there. 
> Whether this is seen as a gradual clarification of one Reality, or a 
> linear path from the relative area of life to the Absolute is not 
> important. However we tend as human beings to learn things in a 
> linear way, hence Maharishi's explanation of the process of TM as a 
> process recognizing both relative and absolute areas of life (when 
> in fact the reality recognized when both are integrated is just one 
> Reality).
> 
> To continually bring up the supposed dualistic nature of the path of 
> TM ignores the descriptive term inherent in TM: Transcendental. A 
> Transcendental practice is by definition non-dual.

No, to transcend implies a dualism. If it was non-dual th

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[Rick]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0  wrote:
> > >
> > > trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started
a new
> > > thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > > > 
> > > > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > > > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > > > thing.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but Maharishi was
> > > quite clear that there is some "doing" in the thinking/picking up of
> > > the mantra and that, yes, this is a contradictory to the mantra just
> > > appearing on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or
pick
> > > up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as
effortessly
> > > as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking and of course
thinking
> > > is doing. It may be an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
> > > 
> > > While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique of
> > > "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect in
calling it
> > > "subtle effort" becaue of that doing. To misunderstand this puts one
> > > in the position of a meditator I once encountered who asked "What
> > > happens if you sit there for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra
> > > doesn't come?" Duh.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > I would swear that I saw a tape in which somebody asked MMY that very
> > thing and he said something to the effect of, well, then that's just
> > the way it is, there's nothing to be done.  (Though every teacher or
> > checker I later told that to said he couldn't have said that.)  I
> > think the person's mantra wasn't coming without an amount of effort
> > that seemed to be too much.  I've used to have that "problem" myself a
> > lot, and I would end up sometimes sitting there for most of 20 minutes
> > without, it seemed, even a glimmer of a mantra.
> > 
> 
> In the early 70's, a TM teacher had to check a recently returned
Vietnam vet. She said it 
> took her the entire checking session to get him to keep his eyes
closed more than a 
> second or so. She never got past that stage with him. 
> 
> Obviously, in some situations, for some people, the usual procedures
and predictios just 
> don't apply.
> 
> > 
> > Also, it seems to me that the contradictory nature of the meditation
> > is an essential element of it.
> >
> 
> I think that its not a contraiction so much as a non-rational thing.
You can't discuss it and 
> it is silly to even try (which is what we're doing in this thread:
being silly).
>

Well. it seems to me that the silly nature of this group is an
essential element of it.  





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness (Hot Button Issue?)

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel"  wrote:
> >
> >  (snip)
> > "I'm honestly curious. This effortlessness thang
> > > > is obviously a *serious* hot button for both you
> > > > and Judy. You both react as if you had been
> > > > personally attacked every time it comes up"...
> > 
> > 
> > The 'Effortless Thang' is a hot button indeed;
> > Indeed, once again you have found, single handily:
> > "The Hot Button"...
> > And why is it such a hot button, I am wondering?
> > Well perhaps, it's because the whole notion of effortlessness;
> > Until Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, came onto the scene;
> > Was not a widely understood concept or belief...
> > And still causes much confusion, as explified in your piece...
> 
> 
> Actually this is a very ancient idea.
> 
> I just returned from retreat and one of the texts I took with me was _The 
> Authenticity of 
> Spontaneous Presence_ which deals explicitly with Unity Consciousness and 
> contains a 
> whole section on effortlessness. One of the criteria you can look for to see 
> if the system 
of 
> practice you are using is effortless is to see if it is based on the Two 
> Truths, a relative 
and 
> an absolute.
> 
> If it is, it cannot be effortless.
> 
> In regards to transcending, the Expansive Space Great Completion Tantra says 
> the 
> following:
> 
> "Although the external appears as "object"
> Clear, non-conceptual, and so forth,
> Although the mind does nothing at all
> It's charmed, allured by the taste of the transcendent, so
> Eliminate just that internal superimposition.
> This is clear."
> 
> Effortlessness cannot exist with a View that presupposes or works with "two" 
> (truths) but 
> only where Spontaneous Presence exists as Inseparability. This is 
> epistemologically 
> impossible where there is an overlay or superimposition as in the above quote.
>

Ah, so in your interpretation, you don't catch the inherent contradiction of 
admonishing 
someone to DO something in order to Eliminate duality?

I think MMY (and myself to some extent) gets it while you don't: give the 
meditator the 
taste of the "right" [effortless, more or less] start, and the process goes on 
its own. The 
Elimination of superimpositions happens on its own, which is the ONLY way it 
CAN 
happen.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness (Hot Button Issue?)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" 
 wrote:
> >
> >  (snip)
> > "I'm honestly curious. This effortlessness thang
> > > > is obviously a *serious* hot button for both you
> > > > and Judy. You both react as if you had been
> > > > personally attacked every time it comes up"...
> > 
> > 
> > The 'Effortless Thang' is a hot button indeed;
> > Indeed, once again you have found, single handily:
> > "The Hot Button"...
> > And why is it such a hot button, I am wondering?
> > Well perhaps, it's because the whole notion of effortlessness;
> > Until Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, came onto the scene;
> > Was not a widely understood concept or belief...
> > And still causes much confusion, as explified in your piece...
> 
> 
> Actually this is a very ancient idea.
> 
> I just returned from retreat and one of the texts I took with me 
was _The Authenticity of 
> Spontaneous Presence_ which deals explicitly with Unity 
Consciousness and contains a 
> whole section on effortlessness. One of the criteria you can look 
for to see if the system of 
> practice you are using is effortless is to see if it is based on 
the Two Truths, a relative and 
> an absolute.
> 
> If it is, it cannot be effortless.
> 
> In regards to transcending, the Expansive Space Great Completion 
Tantra says the 
> following:
> 
> "Although the external appears as "object"
> Clear, non-conceptual, and so forth,
> Although the mind does nothing at all
> It's charmed, allured by the taste of the transcendent, so
> Eliminate just that internal superimposition.
> This is clear."
> 
> Effortlessness cannot exist with a View that presupposes or works 
with "two" (truths) but 
> only where Spontaneous Presence exists as Inseparability. This is 
epistemologically 
> impossible where there is an overlay or superimposition as in the 
above quote.
>
With all due respect, you are confusing effortlessness stated as the 
goal of action with instructions given for meditation. 

When Maharishi has spoken about the absolute and relative areas of 
life, he has done so to explain what the adherent will do during 
meditation. He could've just as easily started with the end result, 
where there is no duality, but that doesn't provide any explanation 
of the process.

While it is important to understand the process in context of the 
end result, it is easier to explain it as a duality, so that the 
practitioner of the meditation understands that they are evolving 
from one state to another. Otherwise the practitioner will either 
get confused or lose interest.

All spiritual practice tries to move the practitioner to the same 
place. However it must be clearly explained how to get there. 
Whether this is seen as a gradual clarification of one Reality, or a 
linear path from the relative area of life to the Absolute is not 
important. However we tend as human beings to learn things in a 
linear way, hence Maharishi's explanation of the process of TM as a 
process recognizing both relative and absolute areas of life (when 
in fact the reality recognized when both are integrated is just one 
Reality).

To continually bring up the supposed dualistic nature of the path of 
TM ignores the descriptive term inherent in TM: Transcendental. A 
Transcendental practice is by definition non-dual. 






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness (Hot Button Issue?)

[vajradhatu108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  (snip)
> "I'm honestly curious. This effortlessness thang
> > > is obviously a *serious* hot button for both you
> > > and Judy. You both react as if you had been
> > > personally attacked every time it comes up"...
> 
> 
> The 'Effortless Thang' is a hot button indeed;
> Indeed, once again you have found, single handily:
> "The Hot Button"...
> And why is it such a hot button, I am wondering?
> Well perhaps, it's because the whole notion of effortlessness;
> Until Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, came onto the scene;
> Was not a widely understood concept or belief...
> And still causes much confusion, as explified in your piece...


Actually this is a very ancient idea.

I just returned from retreat and one of the texts I took with me was _The 
Authenticity of 
Spontaneous Presence_ which deals explicitly with Unity Consciousness and 
contains a 
whole section on effortlessness. One of the criteria you can look for to see if 
the system of 
practice you are using is effortless is to see if it is based on the Two 
Truths, a relative and 
an absolute.

If it is, it cannot be effortless.

In regards to transcending, the Expansive Space Great Completion Tantra says 
the 
following:

"Although the external appears as "object"
Clear, non-conceptual, and so forth,
Although the mind does nothing at all
It's charmed, allured by the taste of the transcendent, so
Eliminate just that internal superimposition.
This is clear."

Effortlessness cannot exist with a View that presupposes or works with "two" 
(truths) but 
only where Spontaneous Presence exists as Inseparability. This is 
epistemologically 
impossible where there is an overlay or superimposition as in the above quote.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness (Hot Button Issue?)

[Robert Gimbel]

 (snip)
"I'm honestly curious. This effortlessness thang
> > is obviously a *serious* hot button for both you
> > and Judy. You both react as if you had been
> > personally attacked every time it comes up"...


The 'Effortless Thang' is a hot button indeed;
Indeed, once again you have found, single handily:
"The Hot Button"...
And why is it such a hot button, I am wondering?
Well perhaps, it's because the whole notion of effortlessness;
Until Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, came onto the scene;
Was not a widely understood concept or belief...
And still causes much confusion, as explified in your piece...

So, my take on this issue is thus:
TM is to teach you how to become effortless;
That is what the final goal of TM is: Enlightenment.
What is enlightenment, as defined by Maharishi-
Enlightenment, comes when through the practice of TM;
One gains the experience of the Transcendent;
In one's awareness, until it is able to be maintained...
Effortlessly.
The whole process of TM is to teach you what effortlessness is.

->-> More experience with TM = more understanding of effortlessness.. 
because that is what TM teaches.
For me, just the 'Intention to Meditate', causes it to happen.
Mantra, no mantra, thought, no thought;
What is behind it all?
Pure Consciousness.
Your own 'watchful self'...
TM is the process, not the goal.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> sparaig wrote:
> 
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
[...]
> >>So?   Meditating with the eyes open is a valid technique.  We teach that 
> >>too.  It is not a part of TM but there are plenty of paragraphs in 
> >>Sivananda's work that describe techniques used in the TM teaching.  
> >>That's why I pointed out the Hints section.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Perhaps, but he says that only neophyte meditators meditate with eyes shut. 
> >That 
implies 
> >that the SAME technique is used in both eyes shut and eyes open cases.
> >
> Yes that is how it is practiced.  But this isn't done in TM.
>

My intuition says this is a Wrong Thing. I'd like to see evidence that it 
stablizes samadhi.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[Bhairitu]

sparaig wrote:

>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>sparaig wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>>>[...]
>>> 
>>>
>>>  
>>>
Be sure to read the "Some Useful Hints" section.

   



>>>Well, h...
>>>
>>>"Sit on Padma or Siddha Asana. Close the eyes. Concentrate the gaze on the 
>>>Trikuti 
>>>  
>>>
>(space 
>  
>
>>>between the two eyebrows). Now, chant Dhirga Pranava (long OM) forcibly for 
>>>five 
>>>  
>>>
>minutes. 
>  
>
>>>This will remove Vikshepa or tossing of the mind. Concentration will ensue. 
>>>Now 
>>>  
>>>
>repeat 
>  
>
>>>OM mentally with Brahma-Bhavana. Whenever the mind begins to wander, again 
>>>chant 
>>>  
>>>
>OM 
>  
>
>>>verbally. As soon as the mind gets calm, mentally repeat OM again. The same 
>>>process 
>>>  
>>>
>can 
>  
>
>>>be adopted for Saguna meditation also."
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>It's disingenuous of you to just focus on the other techniques Sivananda 
>>gives that are not TM like.   Sivananda gives plenty of tips on 
>>meditation that ARE TM-like.   Point is Maharishi did not invent the TM 
>>meditation process.  It's been around for ages.  Sorry to spoil your 
>>delusion.  Get over it.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Sorry, Didn't appear to make distinctions between one technique and the next.
>
>  
>
>>>Not to mention, h
>>>
>>>"In the beginning, when you are a neophyte, you can close your eyes to 
>>>remove the 
>>>distraction of mind, as you are very weak. But, later on, you must meditate 
>>>with eyes 
>>>  
>>>
>open, 
>  
>
>>>even during walking. You must keep your balance of mind even when you are in 
>>>the 
>>>  
>>>
>bustle 
>  
>
>>>of a city. Then only you are perfect. Why do you close your eyes during 
>>>meditation? 
>>>  
>>>
>Open 
>  
>
>>>your eyes and meditate. Think strongly that the world is unreal, that there 
>>>is no world, 
>>>  
>>>
>that 
>  
>
>>>there is Atman only. If you can meditate on Atman even when the eyes are 
>>>open, you 
>>>  
>>>
>will 
>  
>
>>>be a strong man. You will not be easily disturbed."
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>So?   Meditating with the eyes open is a valid technique.  We teach that 
>>too.  It is not a part of TM but there are plenty of paragraphs in 
>>Sivananda's work that describe techniques used in the TM teaching.  
>>That's why I pointed out the Hints section.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps, but he says that only neophyte meditators meditate with eyes shut. 
>That implies 
>that the SAME technique is used in both eyes shut and eyes open cases.
>
Yes that is how it is practiced.  But this isn't done in TM.



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> sparaig wrote:
> 
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >[...]
> >  
> >
> >>Be sure to read the "Some Useful Hints" section.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, h...
> >
> >"Sit on Padma or Siddha Asana. Close the eyes. Concentrate the gaze on the 
> >Trikuti 
(space 
> >between the two eyebrows). Now, chant Dhirga Pranava (long OM) forcibly for 
> >five 
minutes. 
> >This will remove Vikshepa or tossing of the mind. Concentration will ensue. 
> >Now 
repeat 
> >OM mentally with Brahma-Bhavana. Whenever the mind begins to wander, again 
> >chant 
OM 
> >verbally. As soon as the mind gets calm, mentally repeat OM again. The same 
> >process 
can 
> >be adopted for Saguna meditation also."
> >
> >  
> >
> It's disingenuous of you to just focus on the other techniques Sivananda 
> gives that are not TM like.   Sivananda gives plenty of tips on 
> meditation that ARE TM-like.   Point is Maharishi did not invent the TM 
> meditation process.  It's been around for ages.  Sorry to spoil your 
> delusion.  Get over it.
> 

Sorry, Didn't appear to make distinctions between one technique and the next.

> >Not to mention, h
> >
> >"In the beginning, when you are a neophyte, you can close your eyes to 
> >remove the 
> >distraction of mind, as you are very weak. But, later on, you must meditate 
> >with eyes 
open, 
> >even during walking. You must keep your balance of mind even when you are in 
> >the 
bustle 
> >of a city. Then only you are perfect. Why do you close your eyes during 
> >meditation? 
Open 
> >your eyes and meditate. Think strongly that the world is unreal, that there 
> >is no world, 
that 
> >there is Atman only. If you can meditate on Atman even when the eyes are 
> >open, you 
will 
> >be a strong man. You will not be easily disturbed."
> >
> So?   Meditating with the eyes open is a valid technique.  We teach that 
> too.  It is not a part of TM but there are plenty of paragraphs in 
> Sivananda's work that describe techniques used in the TM teaching.  
> That's why I pointed out the Hints section.
>

Perhaps, but he says that only neophyte meditators meditate with eyes shut. 
That implies 
that the SAME technique is used in both eyes shut and eyes open cases.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[Bhairitu]

sparaig wrote:

>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
>  
>
>>Be sure to read the "Some Useful Hints" section.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Well, h...
>
>"Sit on Padma or Siddha Asana. Close the eyes. Concentrate the gaze on the 
>Trikuti (space 
>between the two eyebrows). Now, chant Dhirga Pranava (long OM) forcibly for 
>five minutes. 
>This will remove Vikshepa or tossing of the mind. Concentration will ensue. 
>Now repeat 
>OM mentally with Brahma-Bhavana. Whenever the mind begins to wander, again 
>chant OM 
>verbally. As soon as the mind gets calm, mentally repeat OM again. The same 
>process can 
>be adopted for Saguna meditation also."
>
>  
>
It's disingenuous of you to just focus on the other techniques Sivananda 
gives that are not TM like.   Sivananda gives plenty of tips on 
meditation that ARE TM-like.   Point is Maharishi did not invent the TM 
meditation process.  It's been around for ages.  Sorry to spoil your 
delusion.  Get over it.

>Not to mention, h
>
>"In the beginning, when you are a neophyte, you can close your eyes to remove 
>the 
>distraction of mind, as you are very weak. But, later on, you must meditate 
>with eyes open, 
>even during walking. You must keep your balance of mind even when you are in 
>the bustle 
>of a city. Then only you are perfect. Why do you close your eyes during 
>meditation? Open 
>your eyes and meditate. Think strongly that the world is unreal, that there is 
>no world, that 
>there is Atman only. If you can meditate on Atman even when the eyes are open, 
>you will 
>be a strong man. You will not be easily disturbed."
>
So?   Meditating with the eyes open is a valid technique.  We teach that 
too.  It is not a part of TM but there are plenty of paragraphs in 
Sivananda's work that describe techniques used in the TM teaching.  
That's why I pointed out the Hints section.




To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> >
> Be sure to read the "Some Useful Hints" section.
>

Well, h...

"Sit on Padma or Siddha Asana. Close the eyes. Concentrate the gaze on the 
Trikuti (space 
between the two eyebrows). Now, chant Dhirga Pranava (long OM) forcibly for 
five minutes. 
This will remove Vikshepa or tossing of the mind. Concentration will ensue. Now 
repeat 
OM mentally with Brahma-Bhavana. Whenever the mind begins to wander, again 
chant OM 
verbally. As soon as the mind gets calm, mentally repeat OM again. The same 
process can 
be adopted for Saguna meditation also."


Not to mention, h

"In the beginning, when you are a neophyte, you can close your eyes to remove 
the 
distraction of mind, as you are very weak. But, later on, you must meditate 
with eyes open, 
even during walking. You must keep your balance of mind even when you are in 
the bustle 
of a city. Then only you are perfect. Why do you close your eyes during 
meditation? Open 
your eyes and meditate. Think strongly that the world is unreal, that there is 
no world, that 
there is Atman only. If you can meditate on Atman even when the eyes are open, 
you will 
be a strong man. You will not be easily disturbed."





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[Bhairitu]

sparaig wrote:

>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>hermandan0 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started a new
>>>thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
>>>
>>>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>  
>>>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
   



>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>Any meditation technique that relies on a object
>of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
>it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
>acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> 
>
>  
>
Of course, it's never been established that what he
said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
thing.

   



>>>I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but Maharishi was
>>>quite clear that there is some "doing" in the thinking/picking up of
>>>the mantra and that, yes, this is a contradictory to the mantra just
>>>appearing on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick
>>>up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as effortessly
>>>as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking and of course thinking
>>>is doing. It may be an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
>>>
>>>While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique of
>>>"effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect in calling it
>>>"subtle effort" becaue of that doing. To misunderstand this puts one
>>>in the position of a meditator I once encountered who asked "What
>>>happens if you sit there for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra
>>>doesn't come?" Duh.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>Nit-picking and over analyzing the method does not help anything 
>>either.  When you sit to meditate you just introduce or think the 
>>mantra.  What was trying to be avoided was forcing the mind on the 
>>mantra or any straining.  That is the context of the checking notes.  
>>This is also the teaching in other traditions.
>>
>>A properly enlivened mantra will enchant the mind anyway but if 
>>something is stirred up by the process it will usually express itself as 
>>thoughts.
>>
>>Folks might want to read Sivananda's "Mind - It's Mysteries and Control"
>>http://www.dlshq.org/download/mind.htm
>>which was originally published in 1936, years before Maharishi ever 
>>dreamt of becoming a monk and discusses the process of meditation in 
>>very similar terms.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Well hmmm
>
>"A Mantra purifies the mind. Mere repetition of a Mantra, parrot-like, has 
>very little effect. 
>It has some benefit. It must be repeated with Bhava (feeling). Then it 
>produces wonderful 
>effects. The Mantra, unless inspired with the powerful will-force of one's own 
>mind, 
>cannot produce much effect."
>
Be sure to read the "Some Useful Hints" section.



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > 
> > > We *insist* that it's effortless because it's our
> > > experience that it only *works* if it's effortless.
> > > It isn't a matter of "belief."
> > 
> > P.S.: Actually, Lawson maintains that effort is
> > not needed, not that effortlessness is essential.
> > I'm not sure I agree with him on this, but I
> > think it may be a matter of semantics.
> >
> 
> It's more a matter of introducing subtle effort worrying about 
effort. Knowing that it's not 
> needed, you don't feel a need to introduce it, but at the same 
time, you dno't feel a need 
> to obsess about whether or not your effortless enough--the natural 
tendency is for the 
> mind to transcend anyway, so the person's experience with "how to" 
meditate will naturally 
> become less and less over time, anyway--IF he/she doesn't worry 
about the degree of 
> effort or effortlessness involved beyond simply "thinking the 
mantra like any other 
> thought."

OK, I'll buy that.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > We *insist* that it's effortless because it's our
> > experience that it only *works* if it's effortless.
> > It isn't a matter of "belief."
> 
> P.S.: Actually, Lawson maintains that effort is
> not needed, not that effortlessness is essential.
> I'm not sure I agree with him on this, but I
> think it may be a matter of semantics.
>

It's more a matter of introducing subtle effort worrying about effort. Knowing 
that it's not 
needed, you don't feel a need to introduce it, but at the same time, you dno't 
feel a need 
to obsess about whether or not your effortless enough--the natural tendency is 
for the 
mind to transcend anyway, so the person's experience with "how to" meditate 
will naturally 
become less and less over time, anyway--IF he/she doesn't worry about the 
degree of 
effort or effortlessness involved beyond simply "thinking the mantra like any 
other 
thought."







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The problem is with the word "efffort." It implies a
> > > focused trying which is not how you do TM. I think a
> > > better word would be "intent." 
> > 
> > And even that isn't always necessary--perhaps never necessary.
> 
> There was a '76 paperback called "The Relaxation
> Controversy" (specifically about Benson's method
> vs. TM) by journalist Martin Ebon (who did a
> number of such books on TM that were more accurate
> than most by non-TMers) which included an interview
> with Charlie Donahue.  Quote:
> 
> "One thing about TM that is terribly subtle and
> difficult to get across, is that the mechanics of
> our meditation method are nonintentional.  You
> cannot characterize [TM] by some rule that's
> consistently applied[With Benson's technique]
> there is the consistent application of a rule,
> [whereas with TM] you just don't have such a rule.
> ...[We have] an explanation as to why {TM] cannot
> be intentionalTranscending means experiencing
> without an object [or] attention-free consciousness.
> In order to experience attention-free consciousness,
> we cannot engage in manipulating attention.  The
> kind of attention that's a prerequisite for any
> consistent application of a rule is disallowed."
>

You can't force your thalamus to become less active via force, unless it's due 
to temporary 
exhaustion of the neurons themselves. I've seen a Zen researcher speculate this 
precisesly: 
that long-term concentration brings about exhaustion of the thalamus and that's 
when 
satori takes place.









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> We *insist* that it's effortless because it's our
> experience that it only *works* if it's effortless.
> It isn't a matter of "belief."

P.S.: Actually, Lawson maintains that effort is
not needed, not that effortlessness is essential.
I'm not sure I agree with him on this, but I
think it may be a matter of semantics.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
> [...]
> > The problem is with the word "efffort." It implies a
> > focused trying which is not how you do TM. I think a
> > better word would be "intent." 
> 
> And even that isn't always necessary--perhaps never necessary.

There was a '76 paperback called "The Relaxation
Controversy" (specifically about Benson's method
vs. TM) by journalist Martin Ebon (who did a
number of such books on TM that were more accurate
than most by non-TMers) which included an interview
with Charlie Donahue.  Quote:

"One thing about TM that is terribly subtle and
difficult to get across, is that the mechanics of
our meditation method are nonintentional.  You
cannot characterize [TM] by some rule that's
consistently applied[With Benson's technique]
there is the consistent application of a rule,
[whereas with TM] you just don't have such a rule.
...[We have] an explanation as to why {TM] cannot
be intentionalTranscending means experiencing
without an object [or] attention-free consciousness.
In order to experience attention-free consciousness,
we cannot engage in manipulating attention.  The
kind of attention that's a prerequisite for any
consistent application of a rule is disallowed."







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> For the record, I think it's *fine* for you to 
> believe that TM is completely effortless, even if 
> many others -- having practiced it -- don't agree 
> with you. What I'm interested in is WHY you get 
> so emotional and defensive every time you 
> encounter someone who doesn't believe that 
> it's absolutely, completely effortless.

Well, we don't get "emotional and defensive," of
course.  That characterization is a thought-
stopper designed to short-circuit rational
discussion.

We *insist* that it's effortless because it's our
experience that it only *works* if it's effortless.
It isn't a matter of "belief."

> WHY do you think that you do this?  And do you
> think that this is a *positive* thing to do?

If practicing TM correctly is a positive thing,
then it's certainly positive to point out what's
involved in practicing TM correctly.

> I'm honestly curious. This effortlessness thang
> is obviously a *serious* hot button for both you
> and Judy. You both react as if you had been
> personally attacked every time it comes up

No, we don't.  That's another thought-stopper.

, and
> people (including Maharishi) suggest that some
> subtle effort IS involved with TM.

What exactly did he say?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> > In my experience, the recognition that I am not
> > thinking the mantra arises spontaneously, without
> > any intention or "mindfulness"; and the mantra
> > is there, also spontaneously, immediately following
> > that recognition.  At that point it would require
> > effort *not* to think the mantra.
> 
> My "expreience" is that often, the recognition that I'm
> not thinking the mantra IS the mantra at some level.

My experience as well.

> > This may not be what occurs for beginning TMers,
> > but I'd suggest that it becomes the case, for
> > most people, at least, after some experience of
> > TM practice.
> 
> I suspect that this is the case for ALL people, even total 
> beginners--it seems to be how my mind WORKS (in the non-effort 
> sense)--but that they 1) don't trust themselves and 2) haven't
> gained sufficient sensativity to their own throught-processes
> to notice the mantra at the spontaneous level and/or insist on
> it being loud.

I suspect the same thing.  I also suspect it's
occasionally the case for experienced TMers; at
least it was for me at one point.  The mantra had
apparently become more subtle than I had realized
was possible, and I struggled with what I eventually
realized was effort to make it less faint until I
just gave up trying, and lo and behold, there it was.

I've said before (not sure I've said it here) that
I think it's not made clear enough just how faint
the mantra can become (MMY has said it can become
"infinitely faint," whatever that means), and that
this is why TM may seem to stop working for some
TMers.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Just jivin', but it's true. Just look on this
> forum. You've got one TB trying to deny 
> Maharishi's own words when he said there was
> a certain level of *obvious* subtle effort 
> associated with TM.

Which TB was this, Barry, and when was it
reported here that MMY said there was a certain
level of *obvious* subtle effort associated with
TM?  I must be missing quite a bit of the
traffic here.

Or else you're having one of your Terrible TB
fantasies again.

 
> THAT is the extent to which TBs will go in
> their addiction to the Holy Dogma Of Effort-
> lessness. They've been told that TM is 
> effortless so many times, and told that they 
> are WRONG if they've ever felt ANY effort 
> associated with it so many times that they've
> come to believe that even *conceiving* of effort
> associated with TM or discussing it is WRONG.

Gosh, I wonder who could possibly have been
telling them this when MMY, according to you,
has said there is "*obvious* subtle effort
associated with TM."

Sounds like you're contradicting yourself
(again).  But I guess that's just another
demonstration of your spiritually advanced
ability to believe in two opposing ideas at
once, right?

Actually--speaking for myself, of course--it's
my *experience* that when there's any effort,
transcending is inhibited.

> They react as if someone has committed a crime 
> or a sin of some kind when the subject comes up.

It's really a shame that you and Vaj never
experienced TM as effortless.  Maybe you
should have gotten yourselves checked more 
often.

> Weird, if you ask me. It's like watching holy
> roller Christians when someone suggests that
> Christ might have been human.

For Holy Roller (and most other) Christians,
the notion that Christ was *not* human is a
heresy, actually.  It's called monophysitism.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69"  wrote:
> 
> [...]
> is a paradox. Like a koan.
> >  is an essential element of it.
> > >
> >
> 
> Only if you worry about it. Intellectual discussions risk confusing people 
> for no good 
reason. 
> And one needed examine or even note the paradoxes (if there are any) in order 
> to get 
> benefits from the practice.
> 
> Innocence means... innocience...
>

Should read "and *noone* need examine..."





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > Thinking you know how TM is supposed to work in any 
> > given moment is just another Buddha to be slain (JABTBS).
> 
> And yet YOU are the one who goes a little insane
> every time someone suggests that a little subtle
> intention might be involved in the practice of TM.

Where have I said that? I have quite consistently said that the worry about 
effort or no effort 
is a bugaboo. No effort is REQUIRED.

End of story.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > OF COURSE there is some subtle effort in TM. But
> > > don't tell the "Duh" folks here (Sparaig and Judy),
> > > because it's MUCH more fun watching them jump 
> > > through hoops trying to tell everyone that Maharishi
> > > didn't really mean what he said, and that they know
> > > better.  :-)  :-)  :-)
> > 
> > "Of course," there's some subtle effort: if there 
> > wasn't, you couldn't call  it unqiue. And you 
> > desperately need it not to be unqiue.
> 
> Never mind with the questions I just posted.
> I think you just answered them.
> 
> You react so strongly when anyone questions
> the effortlessness of TM because you desperately
> need it to be "unique." You believe that if it
> isn't really effortless, it isn't unique, and
> for some reason the uniqueness of TM is important
> to you.  Is that it?
>

Effortlessness happens on its own. It happens in all techniues. TM instruction 
just sets up 
the conditions (such as they are) for it to "happen" more regularly.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[...]
is a paradox. Like a koan.
>  is an essential element of it.
> >
>

Only if you worry about it. Intellectual discussions risk confusing people for 
no good reason. 
And one needed examine or even note the paradoxes (if there are any) in order 
to get 
benefits from the practice.

Innocence means... innocience...







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0  wrote:
> >
> > trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started a new
> > thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> > 
> >  
> > > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > > 
> > > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > > thing.
> > >
> > 
> > I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but Maharishi was
> > quite clear that there is some "doing" in the thinking/picking up of
> > the mantra and that, yes, this is a contradictory to the mantra just
> > appearing on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick
> > up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as effortessly
> > as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking and of course thinking
> > is doing. It may be an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
> > 
> > While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique of
> > "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect in calling it
> > "subtle effort" becaue of that doing. To misunderstand this puts one
> > in the position of a meditator I once encountered who asked "What
> > happens if you sit there for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra
> > doesn't come?" Duh.
> >
> 
> 
> I would swear that I saw a tape in which somebody asked MMY that very
> thing and he said something to the effect of, well, then that's just
> the way it is, there's nothing to be done.  (Though every teacher or
> checker I later told that to said he couldn't have said that.)  I
> think the person's mantra wasn't coming without an amount of effort
> that seemed to be too much.  I've used to have that "problem" myself a
> lot, and I would end up sometimes sitting there for most of 20 minutes
> without, it seemed, even a glimmer of a mantra.
> 

In the early 70's, a TM teacher had to check a recently returned Vietnam vet. 
She said it 
took her the entire checking session to get him to keep his eyes closed more 
than a 
second or so. She never got past that stage with him. 

Obviously, in some situations, for some people, the usual procedures and 
predictios just 
don't apply.

> 
> Also, it seems to me that the contradictory nature of the meditation
> is an essential element of it.
>

I think that its not a contraiction so much as a non-rational thing. You can't 
discuss it and 
it is silly to even try (which is what we're doing in this thread: being silly).






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Effortlessness (Of Intention)

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  (snip)
> "> Effortless in TM spin was merely a way of saying it was easy.
> Later it became an
> > amalgamated as part of the dogma--and we all simply "believed".
> >
> I'd put it this way, before enlightenment all is effort and
> afterwards, by definition there is no effort. I always found TM to
> be easy, but never thought about whether or not it was effortless."
> 
> Why not just think of it this way:
> You sit and have the 'Intention' of meditating...
> There is no effort in that.
> Just the intention to begin, and let happen what happens.
> The mantra becomes just an impulse, then fades;
> Thoughts come and go, and we easily come back to the impulse of the 
> mantra.
> Mantra has thousands of different expressions of impulse, perhaps 
> almost an infinite number of impulses;
> Just as a song cannot be sung two ways exactly the same.
> So, it is with TM;
> It's different every time, if you are innocent.
> TM is to teach the mind to be innocent.
> To notice and experience the 'witness' of thought, of the mantra,
> and the activity of transcending, in a systematic way.
> The Siddhi Techniques are the same: Just Intention, same thing.
> And Maharishi always says, that the 'Quietest level is the most 
> powerful'.
> Just the finest, most innocent intention will do...
> R.G.
>

Or none at all...






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness & Sprang I liberally USE the delete key

[WLeed3]

__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  wrote:
[...]
> > Only when we speak about our establishment in a non-dual state, and 
> > the path existing *within* the non-dual state, is any practice of 
> > meditation, or nonmeditation, or watching TV, or eating a meal, 
> > dancing or sleeping, experienced as a non-dual path, within the non-
> > dual state; A path of endless knowledge, existing within itself.
> 
> Now you're getting closer.
> 
> Ask yourself this question: if there is true effortlessness, could there be 
> separation?

Neo-vedanta 101, Maharishi Style: we already know how to meditate--we just 
don't know 
that we know.

> 
> Effortless in TM spin was merely a way of saying it was easy. Later it became 
> an 
> amalgamated as part of the dogma--and we all simply "believed".
>

Belief becomes reality in my case...







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Technically speaking any process of meditation, subject and object
> which are transcended, will require a path and some effort, some
> intention. The only thing that is truly effortless is *nonmeditation.*
> 

Then my TM "practice" must be "nonmeditation," because I seldom, if ever, have 
intent--
save perhaps to keep my eyes closed for 20minutes, and even that is up for 
debate.

> Other things indicative of effort would be any mental process (e.g.
> subtler and subtler levels of mentation till conscious mentation
> stops), awareness of a mental object, any "focus" whether conceptual
> or non-conceptual, allurement or charm towards towards a calm or
> transcendent state, etc.
> 
> 
> That's not to say "effort is bad", is just part and parcel of
> dualistic paths.
> 
> Reflexively authentic open awareness is not focused on any particular
> object and this is why no effort is needed. Any "consciousness" by
> necessity arises from causes, one of which is an object, even a subtle
> object. Self-arisen wisdom does not need an object. In fact
> effortless, nonmeditation requires *no subject or object.
> *
> (back to lurk mode)
>

No subject or object is samadhi.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hermandan0 wrote:
> 
> >trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started a new
> >thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
> >
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> >>
> >>
> >
> > 
> >  
> >
> >>>Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> >>>of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> >>>it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> >>>acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>Of course, it's never been established that what he
> >>said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> >>thing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but Maharishi was
> >quite clear that there is some "doing" in the thinking/picking up of
> >the mantra and that, yes, this is a contradictory to the mantra just
> >appearing on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick
> >up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as effortessly
> >as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking and of course thinking
> >is doing. It may be an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
> >
> >While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique of
> >"effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect in calling it
> >"subtle effort" becaue of that doing. To misunderstand this puts one
> >in the position of a meditator I once encountered who asked "What
> >happens if you sit there for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra
> >doesn't come?" Duh.
> >
> Nit-picking and over analyzing the method does not help anything 
> either.  When you sit to meditate you just introduce or think the 
> mantra.  What was trying to be avoided was forcing the mind on the 
> mantra or any straining.  That is the context of the checking notes.  
> This is also the teaching in other traditions.
> 
> A properly enlivened mantra will enchant the mind anyway but if 
> something is stirred up by the process it will usually express itself as 
> thoughts.
> 
> Folks might want to read Sivananda's "Mind - It's Mysteries and Control"
> http://www.dlshq.org/download/mind.htm
> which was originally published in 1936, years before Maharishi ever 
> dreamt of becoming a monk and discusses the process of meditation in 
> very similar terms.
>

Well hmmm

"A Mantra purifies the mind. Mere repetition of a Mantra, parrot-like, has very 
little effect. 
It has some benefit. It must be repeated with Bhava (feeling). Then it produces 
wonderful 
effects. The Mantra, unless inspired with the powerful will-force of one's own 
mind, 
cannot produce much effect."








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the thoughful and articulate response. Well said. My snips
> are due to brevity rather than assigning a value to certain parts.
> 
> I like your analogy of the rooms. It works well, and fits with both
> experience and practice.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  wrote:
> 
> > Until there is an understanding / foundational perspective /
> > experience / lifeview that the intellect is functioning in its own
> > domain, by its own rules and does not need "volition" from a "me".
> > (See discussion with trinity some months back). This occurs when an
> > indentity with "being the decison maker" dissolves. 
> 
> Thanks, I'll search for this.
> 
> 
> 
> > When effort is transcended, then the [meditation] process is what it
> > is. It just is. Someone said it would not be "meditation" if the
> > mantra does not appear, if some subtle effort is not made to go to the
> > mantra. Experience disagrees, at least when effort has been
> > transcended. Eyes close, vastness is. One can transcend on
> > "nothingness". Which is a process that I beleive Vaj is refering to:
> > objectless meditation. Though it is "paradoxical" -- in THAT process,
> > what is transcending what?
> >
> 
> Nicely put. This also mirrors my experience--sit, close the eyes,
> silence, vastness. I downloaded one of the documents that Vaj posted a
> link to some time back which describes successive stages of
> meditation/transcending and found it very familiar. "Transcending on
> nothingness" is a good way to put it, paradox, notwithstanding. Having
> missed most of the earlier discussion with trinity you refer to (my
> time for ffl is limited), I don't have a sense of how common that
> experience is, either amongst long term TM practitioners, or
> "having-moved-on" TMers, or non-TMers. 
> 
> Such experiences aren't part of the teachings of TM, even though they
> seem to be a natural evolution. I don't think my experience can be
> that uncommon.
> 

But is transcending on nothing a good thing? And is nothing really nothing, or 
just the 
mantra at such a subtle level you can't articulate it at all?

> Anyhow, thanks again for the insights and validation of experiences.
>







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The problem is with the word "efffort." It implies a
> focused trying which is not how you do TM. I think a
> better word would be "intent." 

And even that isn't always necessary--perhaps never necessary.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer  wrote:
> >
> > on 9/20/06 10:18 AM, authfriend at jstein@ wrote:
> >  
> > > Quoting an earlier post from Vaj:
> > > 
> > > "At Estes Park Maharishi pointed out that there really
> > > was some effort in TM. He quoted the Vedas as saying,
> > > 'Be easy to us with gentle effort.'"
> > > 
> > > Obviously we'd need a great deal more context to
> > > know whether Maharishi was using this quote to
> > > describe TM as involving some effort.  Who is being
> > > addressed in the quote?  It appears to be a request
> > > of some kind, but who is making the request, and
> > > of whom?  And how would one entity making a request
> > > of another entity to "be easy to us" relate to TM?
> > > 
> > It related to TM. I was there. I had a feeling that Maharishi was
> > experimenting a bit by bringing up the quote. He only mentioned it 
> in one
> > lecture.
> >
> 
> 
> On my TTC at the end when we learned the last part of the teaching, 
> we met with MMY and he asked us if we had any concerns before we 
> went into that final phase.  A fellow from France stood up and said 
> that he had a problem with his own meditation: that every time he 
> thought the mantra that he wanted to shout it out.
> 
> After talking with him for a few minutes and sort of diagnosing what 
> the situation was, Maharishi said to him: okay, look at my arm.  I 
> want you to think the mantra every time I move my arm up.  And then 
> he started to, very slowly at first, move his arm up and down.  Then 
> he started doing it faster and then really fast.  And then he 
> started to giggle.
> 
> I forget what the outcome of all this was and whether the French guy 
> was satisfied but what struck me was that in order to do what MMY 
> said to do -- think the mantra every time he saw MMY's arm go up -- 
> that effort was involved.  Now, I know that this whole episode was a 
> sort of "clinic" and all and it was all in context of this 
> particular person's unusual meditation experience, but that's what 
> struck me at the time: that MMY gave an instruction that necessarily 
> required effort.
>

I think MMY's point was that the guy wasn't shouting while MMY moved his arm...





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0  wrote:
> 
> > Whatever the provenance of the Estes Park quote and whether it
> > is referring to effortless thinking of the mantra, Maharishi
> > still said what I'm saying he did. Sorry, I can't quote you the 
> > exact tape but it was one of the ushers on the course who raised 
> > the point that thoughts just come into his head spontaneously
> > and randomly, but the mantra *gets* thought and that seems to be
> > a contradiction. MMY laughed and agreed it was a contradiction, 
> > resloving it in the way I explained.
> 
> I'm not challenging that at all, except to say that
> after some experience of TM, the mantra no longer
> "gets thought" but arises spontaneously, just like
> any other thought.
> 
> > >  but
> > > > Maharishi was quite clear that there is some "doing" in
> > > > the thinking/picking up of the mantra and that, yes, this
> > > > is a contradictory to the mantra just appearing on its
> > > > own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick up
> > > > the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as
> > > > effortessly as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking
> > > > and of course thinking is doing. It may be an effortless
> > > > doing, but it's a doing.
> > > 
> > > I think there may be a semantic issue here with
> > > regard to "doing."  If, as you say, "doing" can be
> > > effortless, it seems like a distinction without a
> > > difference.
> > 
> > That's a good part of my point. The issue is largely semantic and
> > that's why I said that IMO "it is not incorrect" to word it the way
> > Vaj does. It's not a reason for denying the point.
> 
> If by "subtle effort" he means "effortless doing,"
> then I wouldn't disagree with him.  But I don't think
> that's what he means.  Remember he also says there is
> "mindfulness" involved in realizing one isn't thinking
> the mantra.
> 

Gotta "be vigilant in order to not be lost in thoughts" to quote a prominent 
Buddhist 
meditation teacher. And yet, getting lost in thoughts or falling asleep 
(another big no-no 
according to this teacher) are perfectly OK. If something wasn't OK, you'd be 
tryng to avoid 
it, eh?

> 
> > > In my understanding, intentionally picking up the
> > > mantra is done only when the mantra does not come
> > > on its own.
> > 
> > Coming on its own is effortless thinking, yes. But if 
> > it doesn't come on its own you pick it up--effortlessly.
> 
> Right.  That's the instruction for when it doesn't
> come on its own.
> 
> > > In my experience, the recognition that I am not
> > > thinking the mantra arises spontaneously, without
> > > any intention or "mindfulness"; and the mantra
> > > is there, also spontaneously, immediately following
> > > that recognition.  At that point it would require
> > > effort *not* to think the mantra.
> > > 
> > > This may not be what occurs for beginning TMers,
> > > but I'd suggest that it becomes the case, for
> > > most people, at least, after some experience of
> > > TM practice.
> > 
> > Sure, the *effortless thinking* of the mantra becomes a
> > well-established habit. But it is still thinking/picking
> > up the mantra.
> 
> But there's no *volition* involved.  The thought
> of no-mantra automatically invokes the thought of
> mantra (sort of like "Don't think of an elephant"):
> No mantra...mantra...mantra...mantra...
>
 And if it somehw doesn't (at some extremely subtle, even inarticulateable 
level), than you 
deliberately think the mantra in some way. The thought OF the mantra, IS the 
mantra, so 
this seldom happens, in my experience.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Related to TM, my view is that when the mind becomes aware,
> > > effortless, that the mantra is not there, the intellect says "we
> > > should think the mantra" and puts the mind in the mantra room. That
> > > is a very small effort of the intellect (maybe).
> > 
> > > Until there is an understanding / foundational perspective /
> > > experience / lifeview that the intellect is functioning in its own
> > > domain, by its own rules and does not need "volition" from a "me".
> > > (See discussion with trinity some months back). This occurs when an
> > > indentity with "being the decison maker" dissolves. 
> > > 
> > > So from that clearer, more "awakened" perspective, there is not even
> > > any effort on the part of the intellect. It -- the intellect -- and
> > > its processes, just happen. Just as effortlessly as thoughts arise 
> > > in the mind.
> > 
> > FWIW, I'm not convinced that the intellect functions
> > at all in this situation, 
> 
> Perhaps "intellect" connates something (perhaps slightly) differnt to
> you than to me. I am not referring to grand and deep analysis (shich
> also is the domain of the intellect), but rather, something akin to
> what a 3-cent micro chip might do, a yes/no monitoring function. To me
> "intellect's" functions / processes can be at grand scale or very
> mundane scale. 
> 
> >on its own or via "volition."
> 
> This is an additional quality stacked on the above. If there is
> someone who IS the decider, (identifying with decision maker), then
> there is volition, IMO, though sometimes it can seem pretty automatic.
> In contrast, when there is NO individual entity who IS the decider,
> (identifying with decision maker), then there is no volition. It is
> clearly automatic.  
> 
> Perhaps I could restate the general premise: IF there is effort, it is
> when the the intellect decides to go back to the mantra. Or per my
> "model", the intellect moves the mind to the mantra room -- and allows
> the conditions for the mantra to arise effortlessly. It may seem
> automatic, and pavlovian -- due to repeated practice. Or one may
> experince a slight volition, a slight effort of the intellect.
> 
> > In my own experience, it's more like a Pavlovian-type
> > response to the realization that I'm not thinking the
> > mantra.
>  
> > If the intellect is involved at all, it seems to me, it
> > would be in the recognition that one is not thinking the
> > mantra (i.e., discrimination between not-mantra and
> > mantra). 
> 
> Yes its that. And its the decision to go back to the mantra. And this
> may appear quite automatic.
> 
> >But that doesn't feel volitional either; it
> > seems to be invoked automatically in response to the
> > ending of a train of thought.
> 
> see above.
>  
> > I'd be hesitant to suggest, in my case, that this has
> > anything to do with a more "awakened" perspective.
> 
> It may or may not. The automaticness is not the key distinguishing
> factor. Many reptiles, that is just using reptile brain, react to
> things "instinctively" -- automatically. As humans, we react to to
> many things "by relex" automatically. This does not necessarily
> indicate much.
> 
> The feature I was referring to is an understanding / foundational
> perspective / experience / lifeview / realization that the intellect
> is functioning in its own domain, by its own rules and does not need
> "volition" from a "me" --- when an indentity with "being the decision
> maker" dissolves. In that, the functioning of the intellect is always
> known as automatic. In contrast, in the "I am the doer state"
> automatic /reflex actions are there sometimes, and sometimes one feels
> "I am the doer" -- acting with volition.
>

All this is fascinating but there IS a danger here: that neophyte TMers (or 
even 33 year 
veterans like me) might get confused because they don't have the experiences 
mentioned.

It's always good to recall that everyone's meditation is different. In my 
experience, any 
given moment of meditation might be radically new, or radically the same as all 
other 
moments, so its just not worth worrying about, although of course I do, on 
occassion.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
[...]
> > This may not be what occurs for beginning TMers,
> > but I'd suggest that it becomes the case, for
> > most people, at least, after some experience of
> > TM practice.
> 
> Sure, the *effortless thinking* of the mantra becomes a
> well-established habit. But it is still thinking/picking up the
> mantra. Similarly, it may become an effortless remembrance to push in
> the clutch when changing gears on a standard vehicle, but there would
> be a lot of grinding, if you didn't do it.
> 
> hd
>

But we know that the brain changes as meditation practice continues. Alarik 
Arenander 
makes the case that the brain changes in such a way as to support the 
effortlessness of 
TM practice. It's not merely a matter of automatically changing the clutch. 
It's a matter of 
the car growing an automatic transmission.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> When effort is transcended, then the [meditation] process is what it
> is. It just is. Someone said it would not be "meditation" if the
> mantra does not appear, if some subtle effort is not made to go to the
> mantra. Experience disagrees, at least when effort has been
> transcended. Eyes close, vastness is. One can transcend on
> "nothingness". Which is a process that I beleive Vaj is refering to:
> objectless meditation. Though it is "paradoxical" -- in THAT process,
> what is transcending what?
>

Wll, if there's no mantra, and yet awareness that there is no mantra, there's 
the requirement 
to "come back to" the mantra. 

But, what the hell IS the mantra? If there's doubt whether its there, you go 
with the flow. If 
there's no doubt, you go with the flow. If there IS no mantra, you go back to 
it... Or maybe 
not...






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Quotes, please, from Lawson's and/or my posts in
> which we jump through hoops trying to tell everyone
> that Maharishi didn't mean what he said.
>

What I said a few posts back was that if MMY said what Vaj claimed, then he was 
wrong.

One thing I've been thinking about is Vaj's claim that the average (I guess) 
Samtha 
meditation technique is "just like TM" but that the meditator goes on to better 
things in 
the Buddhist tradition.

I've no doubt that originally these techniques were dyhan techniques just as TM 
is. I would 
be greatly surprised if there aren't Buddhist teachers who don't teach them 
"properly" ala 
TM even today.


HOWEVER, given that one of the more famous meditation teachers' descriptio nof 
them 
ends with an admonishment to "stay vigilent" in order to not fall asleep or 
"get lost in 
thoughts," it seems obvious that most Buddhist meditation teachers don't get it.

Likewise, even if they DO "get it," they don't realize what they have is 
important because 
the measures of the Buddhist monks practicing "advainced" meditation techniques 
for up 
to 50,000 hours over their lifetimes, show little-to-no EEG changes similar to 
what is 
found during samadhi-during-TM OR 24/7 samadhi outside TM. If they HAD 
established 
samadhi, it would still show up and it doesn't. They've failed to kill the 
Buddha, IMHO, and 
have mistaken some form of induced witnessing for thereal thing, which happens 
spontaneously.

How could it happen otherwise? As the thalamus reduces in activity, you become 
less and 
less full of thoughts. Intention is just another thought so intention to have 
samadhi is 
contra-samadhi.












To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> on 9/20/06 9:16 AM, hermandan0 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >> > trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started a new
> >> > thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
> >> > 
> >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >> 
> >> > , "authfriend"  wrote:
> >> > 
> >>> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >>> 
> >>> >> , "vajradhatu108"
> >> > 
> >> >  
>  >>> Any meditation technique that relies on a object
>  >>> of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
>  >>> it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
>  >>> acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).*
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> Of course, it's never been established that what he
> >>> >> said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> >>> >> thing.
> >>> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is,
> > 
> He quote some Vedic literature as saying, ³Be easy to us with gentle effort.²
>

And he's also said "least effort in the direction of less effort."

Does that say that no effort is used, or that no effort is NEEDED?








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > OF COURSE there is some subtle effort in TM. But
> > don't tell the "Duh" folks here (Sparaig and Judy),
> > because it's MUCH more fun watching them jump 
> > through hoops trying to tell everyone that Maharishi
> > didn't really mean what he said, and that they know
> > better.  :-)  :-)  :-)
> 
> "Of course," there's some subtle effort: if there 
> wasn't, you couldn't call  it unqiue. And you 
> desperately need it not to be unqiue.

Never mind with the questions I just posted.
I think you just answered them.

You react so strongly when anyone questions
the effortlessness of TM because you desperately
need it to be "unique." You believe that if it
isn't really effortless, it isn't unique, and
for some reason the uniqueness of TM is important
to you.  Is that it?









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thinking you know how TM is supposed to work in any 
> given moment is just another Buddha to be slain (JABTBS).

And yet YOU are the one who goes a little insane
every time someone suggests that a little subtle
intention might be involved in the practice of TM.

Seems to me that YOU feel that you know *exactly*
how TM is "supposed to work." Otherwise, why 
would you get so emotional every time someone 
suggests a different way of seeing the practice
of TM than you have?

I mean, *really*, dude. Haven't you ever *noticed*
how crazy you get whenever anyone suggests that
TM might not be as completely "effortless" as 
you have been indoctrinated to believe it is?

It seems to me that most people here have *no
problem* with that concept, but that you and Judy
do, and in spades. You both fly into "compulsive 
post mode" every time it comes up, and seem to 
feel compelled to defend the Holy Dogma Of Effort0
lessness as if it were the word of God and *needed*
to be defended.

For the record, I think it's *fine* for you to 
believe that TM is completely effortless, even if 
many others -- having practiced it -- don't agree 
with you. What I'm interested in is WHY you get 
so emotional and defensive every time you 
encounter someone who doesn't believe that 
it's absolutely, completely effortless. 

WHY do you think that you do this?  And do you
think that this is a *positive* thing to do?

I'm honestly curious. This effortlessness thang
is obviously a *serious* hot button for both you
and Judy. You both react as if you had been
personally attacked every time it comes up, and
people (including Maharishi) suggest that some
subtle effort IS involved with TM. But WHY do
you react like this? Doncha think that this
is a pretty interesting reaction?








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0  wrote:
> >
> > trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started a 
> new
> > thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> > 
> >  
> > > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > > 
> > > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > > thing.
> > 
> > I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is,
> 
> Quoting an earlier post from Vaj:
> 
> "At Estes Park Maharishi pointed out that there really
> was some effort in TM. He quoted the Vedas as saying,
> 'Be easy to us with gentle effort.'"
> 
> Obviously we'd need a great deal more context to
> know whether Maharishi was using this quote to
> describe TM as involving some effort.  Who is being
> addressed in the quote?  It appears to be a request
> of some kind, but who is making the request, and
> of whom?  And how would one entity making a request
> of another entity to "be easy to us" relate to TM?
> 
> There may be some connection, but it certainly isn't
> obvious without the context.
> 
>  but
> > Maharishi was quite clear that there is some "doing" in
> > the thinking/picking up of the mantra and that, yes, this
> > is a contradictory to the mantra just appearing on its
> > own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick up
> > the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as
> > effortessly as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking
> > and of course thinking is doing. It may be an effortless
> > doing, but it's a doing.
> 
> I think there may be a semantic issue here with
> regard to "doing."  If, as you say, "doing" can be
> effortless, it seems like a distinction without a
> difference.
> 
> > While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique
> > of "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect
> > in calling it "subtle effort" becaue of that doing.
> 
> Well, but is it effortless, as you say, or is it
> "subtle effort"?  *That* is a distinction that makes
> a *huge* difference.
> 
> MMY has also been very clear that even "subtle effort"
> interferes with transcending, so again there would
> appear to be a semantic issue.
> 
> > To misunderstand this puts one
> > in the position of a meditator I once encountered who asked "What
> > happens if you sit there for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra
> > doesn't come?" Duh.
> 
> In my understanding, intentionally picking up the
> mantra is done only when the mantra does not come
> on its own.
> 
> In my experience, the recognition that I am not
> thinking the mantra arises spontaneously, without
> any intention or "mindfulness"; and the mantra
> is there, also spontaneously, immediately following
> that recognition.  At that point it would require
> effort *not* to think the mantra.
> 

My "expreience" is that often, the recognition that I'm not thinking the mantra 
IS the 
mantra at some level.

> This may not be what occurs for beginning TMers,
> but I'd suggest that it becomes the case, for
> most people, at least, after some experience of
> TM practice.
>

I suspect that this is the case for ALL people, even total beginners--it seems 
to be how my 
mind WORKS (in the non-effort sense)--but that they 1) don't trust themselves 
and 2) 
haven't gained sufficient sensativity to their own throught-processes to notice 
the mantra 
at the spontaneous level and/or insist on it being loud.

Fred Travis' work on the subject of beginners vs advanced medtators shows that 
the 
primary EEG changes during TM happen within the first 4 months. After that, its 
just a 
matter of repeating the wash/rinse cycle. The measureable long-term changes in 
TM 
meditators happen OUTSIDE meditation, not inside.

Now,this may be because our measures are too crude to note subtle changes, but 
it is 
suggestive of how fast someone becomes an "expert" TMer also.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0  wrote:
> >
> > trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started 
> > a new thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
> 
> Good plan.
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> > 
> >  
> > > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > > 
> > > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > > thing.
> > 
> > I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but 
> > Maharishi was quite clear that there is some "doing" 
> > in the thinking/picking up of the mantra and that, yes, 
> > this is a contradictory to the mantra just appearing 
> > on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or 
> > pick up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" 
> > or "as effortessly as a thought comes". Of course one 
> > is thinking and of course thinking is doing. It may be 
> > an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
> > 
> > While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a 
> > technique of "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, 
> > not incorrect in calling it "subtle effort" becaue of 
> > that doing. To misunderstand this puts one in the 
> > position of a meditator I once encountered who asked 
> > "What happens if you sit there for the entire 20 
> > minutes and the mantra doesn't come?" Duh.
> 
> The thing is, you're speaking to a person who (as
> far as I can tell) really *lives* in "Duh-land."
> She probably *believes* that if she sat there for
> 20 minutes and the mantra doesn't "come" that she's
> actually meditating.  :-)
> 

What mantra? What level of thought? During meditation, I've gone 
months--perhaps even 
years--without remembering how to say my mantra out loud, and then one day, 
BAM, 
there it is, in all it's primitive glory--but that's exactly how its supposed 
to be, also.

> The thing is, some people -- fearful types -- got
> so terrorized by the TM dogma that "effort is bad"
> that now they can't admit that there is some subtle
> effort involved with TM, EVEN WHEN MAHARISHI
> SAY IT. They hear him saying it and they feel 
> that they have to come up with amazingly outlandish
> "explanations" for what he "really" meant, and how
> he couldn't *possibly* have been suggesting that
> TM involves some effort or that effort is good.
> 
> In other words, for these people the dogma of 
> "effortlessness" has become more important than 
> the obvious reality of subtle effort. 

So we don't know our own minds?
'
> 
> OF COURSE there is some subtle effort in TM. But
> don't tell the "Duh" folks here (Sparaig and Judy),
> because it's MUCH more fun watching them jump 
> through hoops trying to tell everyone that Maharishi
> didn't really mean what he said, and that they know
> better.  :-)  :-)  :-)
>

"Of course," there's some subtle effort: if there wasn't, you couldn't call  it 
unqiue. And you 
desperately need it not to be unqiue.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started a new
> thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> 
>  
> > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > 
> > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > thing.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but Maharishi was
> quite clear that there is some "doing" in the thinking/picking up of
> the mantra and that, yes, this is a contradictory to the mantra just
> appearing on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick
> up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as effortessly
> as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking and of course thinking
> is doing. It may be an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
> 
> While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique of
> "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect in calling it
> "subtle effort" becaue of that doing. To misunderstand this puts one
> in the position of a meditator I once encountered who asked "What
> happens if you sit there for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra
> doesn't come?" Duh.
>

On the other hand, what if it comes without you noticing for the entire 20 
minutes until 
suddenly you realize that you['ve been meditating without intentionally 
starting?

On the other hand, what if...?

On the other hand, what if...?


Thinking you know how TM is supposed to work in any given moment is just 
another 
Buddha to be slain (JABTBS).







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[shukra69]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0  wrote:
> >
> > trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started a new
> > thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> > 
> >  
> > > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > > 
> > > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > > thing.
> > >
> > 
> > I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but Maharishi was
> > quite clear that there is some "doing" in the thinking/picking up of
> > the mantra and that, yes, this is a contradictory to the mantra just
> > appearing on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick
> > up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as effortessly
> > as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking and of course thinking
> > is doing. It may be an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
> > 
> > While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique of
> > "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect in calling it
> > "subtle effort" becaue of that doing. To misunderstand this puts one
> > in the position of a meditator I once encountered who asked "What
> > happens if you sit there for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra
> > doesn't come?" Duh.
> >
> 
> 
> I would swear that I saw a tape in which somebody asked MMY that very
> thing and he said something to the effect of, well, then that's just
> the way it is, there's nothing to be done.  (Though every teacher or
> checker I later told that to said he couldn't have said that.)  I
> think the person's mantra wasn't coming without an amount of effort
> that seemed to be too much.  I've used to have that "problem" myself a
> lot, and I would end up sometimes sitting there for most of 20 minutes
> without, it seemed, even a glimmer of a mantra.
> 
> 
> Also, it seems to me that the contradictory nature of the meditation
>
Exactly, it is a paradox. Like a koan.
 is an essential element of it.
>







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Effortlessness (Of Intention)

[Robert Gimbel]

 (snip)
"> Effortless in TM spin was merely a way of saying it was easy.
Later it became an
> amalgamated as part of the dogma--and we all simply "believed".
>
I'd put it this way, before enlightenment all is effort and
afterwards, by definition there is no effort. I always found TM to
be easy, but never thought about whether or not it was effortless."

Why not just think of it this way:
You sit and have the 'Intention' of meditating...
There is no effort in that.
Just the intention to begin, and let happen what happens.
The mantra becomes just an impulse, then fades;
Thoughts come and go, and we easily come back to the impulse of the 
mantra.
Mantra has thousands of different expressions of impulse, perhaps 
almost an infinite number of impulses;
Just as a song cannot be sung two ways exactly the same.
So, it is with TM;
It's different every time, if you are innocent.
TM is to teach the mind to be innocent.
To notice and experience the 'witness' of thought, of the mantra,
and the activity of transcending, in a systematic way.
The Siddhi Techniques are the same: Just Intention, same thing.
And Maharishi always says, that the 'Quietest level is the most 
powerful'.
Just the finest, most innocent intention will do...
R.G.
 





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Effortless in TM spin was merely a way of saying it 
> was easy. Later it became an amalgamated as part of 
> the dogma--and we all simply "believed".

And yea the dogma became more important than 
the easiness, and yea the faithful did go
forth to do battle against those who claimed
that effort or intent was valuable, and 
render them lower than the lint in a snake's
navel for messing with the holy dogma.  :-)  :-)

Just jivin', but it's true. Just look on this
forum. You've got one TB trying to deny 
Maharishi's own words when he said there was
a certain level of *obvious* subtle effort 
associated with TM. 

And in another recent instance you had 
another poster claiming that people were 
mistaken about a TM advanced technique they
received because it involved putting their
attention in a certain physical place in the
body. I was never sure why this person was
so vehement, but all I can assume is that 
he believed that if the technique involved 
effort or intent of *any* kind (placing one's
attention on a certain area), he saw it as 
some kind of "betrayal" of the Holy Dogma Of 
Effortlessness. Therefore, in his mind, the 
people describing this technique *must* have 
been either mistaken about it or lying.

THAT is the extent to which TBs will go in
their addiction to the Holy Dogma Of Effort-
lessness. They've been told that TM is 
effortless so many times, and told that they 
are WRONG if they've ever felt ANY effort 
associated with it so many times that they've
come to believe that even *conceiving* of effort
associated with TM or discussing it is WRONG. 
They react as if someone has committed a crime 
or a sin of some kind when the subject comes up.

Weird, if you ask me. It's like watching holy
roller Christians when someone suggests that
Christ might have been human.









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0  wrote:

> > While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique of
> > "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect in
> > calling it "subtle effort" becaue of that doing. To
> > misunderstand this puts one in the position of a meditator
> > I once encountered who asked "What happens if you sit there
> > for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra doesn't come?" Duh.
> 
> I would swear that I saw a tape in which somebody asked MMY that 
> very thing and he said something to the effect of, well, then 
> that's just the way it is, there's nothing to be done.  (Though 
> every teacher or checker I later told that to said he couldn't
> have said that.)  I think the person's mantra wasn't coming
> without an amount of effort that seemed to be too much.

I can't imagine why they would say he hadn't said
that.  In my understanding, there are only two
choices: You start the mantra, or you don't meditate.
Wasn't that what he was pointing out?

> I've used to have that "problem" myself a
> lot, and I would end up sometimes sitting there for most of 20 
> minutes without, it seemed, even a glimmer of a mantra.

Could it have been less than a glimmer, perhaps?

What would have happened had you started the mantra
at whatever level it seemed to need to be started at--
i.e., a gross level if necessary--and then let it do
whatever it wanted to do?

> Also, it seems to me that the contradictory nature of the
> meditation is an essential element of it.

Yes, indeed it is, IMNSHO, *the* essential element.
That's what, paradoxically, ultimately makes it
effortless.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[Rick]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started a new
> thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> 
>  
> > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > 
> > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > thing.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but Maharishi was
> quite clear that there is some "doing" in the thinking/picking up of
> the mantra and that, yes, this is a contradictory to the mantra just
> appearing on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick
> up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as effortessly
> as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking and of course thinking
> is doing. It may be an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
> 
> While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique of
> "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect in calling it
> "subtle effort" becaue of that doing. To misunderstand this puts one
> in the position of a meditator I once encountered who asked "What
> happens if you sit there for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra
> doesn't come?" Duh.
>


I would swear that I saw a tape in which somebody asked MMY that very
thing and he said something to the effect of, well, then that's just
the way it is, there's nothing to be done.  (Though every teacher or
checker I later told that to said he couldn't have said that.)  I
think the person's mantra wasn't coming without an amount of effort
that seemed to be too much.  I've used to have that "problem" myself a
lot, and I would end up sometimes sitting there for most of 20 minutes
without, it seemed, even a glimmer of a mantra.


Also, it seems to me that the contradictory nature of the meditation
is an essential element of it.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
wrote:
> >
> > I'd put it this way, before enlightenment all is effort and 
> > afterwards, by definition there is no effort.
> 
> In a pathless path one is directly introduced to the enlightened 
state *from the beginning*. 
> Once one knows, in their own experience, what the "mysterious 
object", the Big E is, one 
> no longer remains in doubt. One applies the Fruit, the Big E,  *as 
the Path.*

Just to clarify what we are talking about, the way I look at it, 
before I began to meditate regularly, I had no experience of 
enlightenment that I knew about or would recognize as such. Then 
when I first meditated (doing TM), I had a flash of what I would 
call enlightenment- felt blissful and in the zone. But daily life 
still pretty much sucked. Or put another way, I was very much out of 
phase between the fulfillment of my desires and my existence. 
However we decide to describe it, it felt like a dual path; I was 
here and my practical happiness was there.

Then the seperation between me and my path, or me and my happiness 
grew thinner and thinner until *ka-blammo*, one day it vanished. At 
that time and since I have been in the zone so to speak; near 
perfect synchronicity between the fulfillment of my desires and me. 
Enlightenment became stabilized. Or I began what I would call the 
pathless path, because a constant reference point to That, or full 
integration with That, was established. However, like every other 
being, learning continues, hence the experience of the pathless path.

So my question in reference to what you have written is, does the 
pathless path as you speak about it begin with that first flash of 
unestablished but recognized enlightenment, or does it begin with 
the establshment of enlightenment, moving forward?

 






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[vajradhatu108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd put it this way, before enlightenment all is effort and 
> afterwards, by definition there is no effort.

In a pathless path one is directly introduced to the enlightened state *from 
the beginning*. 
Once one knows, in their own experience, what the "mysterious object", the Big 
E is, one 
no longer remains in doubt. One applies the Fruit, the Big E,  *as the Path.*

IMHO this is what the vast majority of people who claim full enlightenment are 
beginning 
to grok--at different levels of integration--the Fruit applied as the Path. 
Bass ackwards, 
but works great.

As Mahesh Varma said to to course participants recently in regards to the 
question of 
whether people in the TM transmission had attained the Big E (grossly 
paraphrased): "there 
are many who have awakened to themselves."

So this verifies my feeling. 

Of course I could have it all wrong. 

 I always found TM to 
> be easy, but never thought about whether or not it was effortless.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying your message. now I can reread the original 
> and get what you are saying.
>

Gladly.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> Effortless in TM spin was merely a way of saying it was easy.
> Later it became an amalgamated as part of the dogma--and we all 
> simply "believed".

"Easy" is not the same as "effortless."  In
straightforward language, TM is effortless,
not just easy.

All you're doing is moving the bar by redefining
terms, coming up with an esoteric meaning of
"effortless" and then declaring MMY has been
deceptive, when in fact he's not using the term
that way.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
 
> > wrote:
> > > That's not to say "effort is bad", is just part and parcel of
> > > dualistic paths.
> > > 
> > > Reflexively authentic open awareness is not focused on any 
particular
> > > object and this is why no effort is needed. 
Any "consciousness" by
> > > necessity arises from causes, one of which is an object, even 
a 
> > subtle
> > > object. Self-arisen wisdom does not need an object. In fact
> > > effortless, nonmeditation requires *no subject or object.
> > 
> > You mention something called a dualistic path above, which 
> > necessitates the existence of a non-dualistic path, which is of 
course 
> > impossible, for who is on the path then?
> 
> Someone on a pathless path.
> 
> Paradox is the logic behind such a pathless path.

I was hoping you would say that.
 
> > So, even an effortless nonmeditation, where the goal is self-
arisen 
> > wisdom, is a practice distinct from daily activity, and hence, a 
> > dualistic path.
> 
> Who said it was distinct from everyday activity? 
> 
Thanks for clearing that up. 
 
> > What you have described above is a non-dual nonmeditation 
possibly 
> > *within a dualistic path*, requiring effort to distinquish 
between the 
> > nonmeditation used to bring about self-arisen wisdom, and all 
other 
> > activity. 
> 
> No. It's a "sudden" approach as opposed to a "gradual" approach 
(e.g. Patanajali-yoga, 
> Buddhist Lam Rim, etc.). You'll find an emphasis and insistence on 
effortlessness as 
> hallmarks of "sudden" schools like Zen/Chan, Dzogchen/Mahasandhi, 
some Trika schools 
> and so on.

In theory the "sudden" approach is great, but doesn't conform to any 
experience I have heard of, unless it is just the difference in 
perspective claiming the glass half full vs half empty; in other 
words, either first assuming we are already enlightened at any point 
along a continuum vs we gain that state after a certain amount of 
spiritual development. I can agree with either case, though the 
latter makes more sense personally from a practical perspective.
 
> > Only when we speak about our establishment in a non-dual state, 
and 
> > the path existing *within* the non-dual state, is any practice 
of 
> > meditation, or nonmeditation, or watching TV, or eating a meal, 
> > dancing or sleeping, experienced as a non-dual path, within the 
non-
> > dual state; A path of endless knowledge, existing within itself.
> 
> Now you're getting closer.
> 
> Ask yourself this question: if there is true effortlessness, could 
there be separation?

I was assuming you were speaking about a non object oriented 
meditation when you spoke about 'nonmeditation'. If not, then all of 
what I was describing above doesn't apply; effortlessness pervades.
> 
> Effortless in TM spin was merely a way of saying it was easy. 
Later it became an 
> amalgamated as part of the dogma--and we all simply "believed".
>
I'd put it this way, before enlightenment all is effort and 
afterwards, by definition there is no effort. I always found TM to 
be easy, but never thought about whether or not it was effortless.

Thanks for clarifying your message. now I can reread the original 
and get what you are saying.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[Peter]

--- vajradhatu108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- shempmcgurk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick
> Archer
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > on 9/20/06 10:18 AM, authfriend at jstein@
> > > wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > Quoting an earlier post from Vaj:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "At Estes Park Maharishi pointed out that
> there
> > > really
> > > > > was some effort in TM. He quoted the Vedas
> as
> > > saying,
> > > > > 'Be easy to us with gentle effort.'"
> > > > > 
> > > > > Obviously we'd need a great deal more
> context to
> > > > > know whether Maharishi was using this quote
> to
> > > > > describe TM as involving some effort.  Who
> is
> > > being
> > > > > addressed in the quote?  It appears to be a
> > > request
> > > > > of some kind, but who is making the request,
> and
> > > > > of whom?  And how would one entity making a
> > > request
> > > > > of another entity to "be easy to us" relate
> to
> > > TM?
> > > > > 
> > > > It related to TM. I was there. I had a feeling
> > > that Maharishi was
> > > > experimenting a bit by bringing up the quote.
> He
> > > only mentioned it 
> > > in one
> > > > lecture.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On my TTC at the end when we learned the last
> part
> > > of the teaching, 
> > > we met with MMY and he asked us if we had any
> > > concerns before we 
> > > went into that final phase.  A fellow from
> France
> > > stood up and said 
> > > that he had a problem with his own meditation:
> that
> > > every time he 
> > > thought the mantra that he wanted to shout it
> out.
> > > 
> > > After talking with him for a few minutes and
> sort of
> > > diagnosing what 
> > > the situation was, Maharishi said to him: okay,
> look
> > > at my arm.  I 
> > > want you to think the mantra every time I move
> my
> > > arm up.  And then 
> > > he started to, very slowly at first, move his
> arm up
> > > and down.  Then 
> > > he started doing it faster and then really fast.
> 
> > > And then he 
> > > started to giggle.
> > > 
> > > I forget what the outcome of all this was and
> > > whether the French guy 
> > > was satisfied but what struck me was that in
> order
> > > to do what MMY 
> > > said to do -- think the mantra every time he saw
> > > MMY's arm go up -- 
> > > that effort was involved.  Now, I know that this
> > > whole episode was a 
> > > sort of "clinic" and all and it was all in
> context
> > > of this 
> > > particular person's unusual meditation
> experience,
> > > but that's what 
> > > struck me at the time: that MMY gave an
> instruction
> > > that necessarily 
> > > required effort.
> > 
> > The problem is with the word "efffort." It implies
> a
> > focused trying which is not how you do TM. I think
> a
> > better word would be "intent." 
> 
> In yogic parlance, the word for effort is
> "prayatna". Effortless, is
> aprayatna.
> 
> Technically speaking any process of meditation,
> subject and object
> which are transcended, will require a path and some
> effort, some
> intention. The only thing that is truly effortless
> is *nonmeditation.*
> 
> Other things indicative of effort would be any
> mental process (e.g.
> subtler and subtler levels of mentation till
> conscious mentation
> stops), awareness of a mental object, any "focus"
> whether conceptual
> or non-conceptual, allurement or charm towards
> towards a calm or
> transcendent state, etc.
> 
> 
> That's not to say "effort is bad", is just part and
> parcel of
> dualistic paths.
> 
> Reflexively authentic open awareness is not focused
> on any particular
> object and this is why no effort is needed. Any
> "consciousness" by
> necessity arises from causes, one of which is an
> object, even a subtle
> object. Self-arisen wisdom does not need an object.
> In fact
> effortless, nonmeditation requires *no subject or
> object.
> *
> (back to lurk mode)


Come out of your cave more often, yogi-ji




> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!' 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTEC

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[vajradhatu108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108"  
> wrote:
> > That's not to say "effort is bad", is just part and parcel of
> > dualistic paths.
> > 
> > Reflexively authentic open awareness is not focused on any particular
> > object and this is why no effort is needed. Any "consciousness" by
> > necessity arises from causes, one of which is an object, even a 
> subtle
> > object. Self-arisen wisdom does not need an object. In fact
> > effortless, nonmeditation requires *no subject or object.
> 
> You mention something called a dualistic path above, which 
> necessitates the existence of a non-dualistic path, which is of course 
> impossible, for who is on the path then?

Someone on a pathless path.

Paradox is the logic behind such a pathless path.

> 
> So, even an effortless nonmeditation, where the goal is self-arisen 
> wisdom, is a practice distinct from daily activity, and hence, a 
> dualistic path.

Who said it was distinct from everyday activity? 

> 
> What you have described above is a non-dual nonmeditation possibly 
> *within a dualistic path*, requiring effort to distinquish between the 
> nonmeditation used to bring about self-arisen wisdom, and all other 
> activity. 

No. It's a "sudden" approach as opposed to a "gradual" approach (e.g. 
Patanajali-yoga, 
Buddhist Lam Rim, etc.). You'll find an emphasis and insistence on 
effortlessness as 
hallmarks of "sudden" schools like Zen/Chan, Dzogchen/Mahasandhi, some Trika 
schools 
and so on.

> 
> Only when we speak about our establishment in a non-dual state, and 
> the path existing *within* the non-dual state, is any practice of 
> meditation, or nonmeditation, or watching TV, or eating a meal, 
> dancing or sleeping, experienced as a non-dual path, within the non-
> dual state; A path of endless knowledge, existing within itself.

Now you're getting closer.

Ask yourself this question: if there is true effortlessness, could there be 
separation?

Effortless in TM spin was merely a way of saying it was easy. Later it became 
an 
amalgamated as part of the dogma--and we all simply "believed".







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> That's not to say "effort is bad", is just part and parcel of
> dualistic paths.
> 
> Reflexively authentic open awareness is not focused on any particular
> object and this is why no effort is needed. Any "consciousness" by
> necessity arises from causes, one of which is an object, even a 
subtle
> object. Self-arisen wisdom does not need an object. In fact
> effortless, nonmeditation requires *no subject or object.

You mention something called a dualistic path above, which 
necessitates the existence of a non-dualistic path, which is of course 
impossible, for who is on the path then?

So, even an effortless nonmeditation, where the goal is self-arisen 
wisdom, is a practice distinct from daily activity, and hence, a 
dualistic path.

What you have described above is a non-dual nonmeditation possibly 
*within a dualistic path*, requiring effort to distinquish between the 
nonmeditation used to bring about self-arisen wisdom, and all other 
activity. 

Only when we speak about our establishment in a non-dual state, and 
the path existing *within* the non-dual state, is any practice of 
meditation, or nonmeditation, or watching TV, or eating a meal, 
dancing or sleeping, experienced as a non-dual path, within the non-
dual state; A path of endless knowledge, existing within itself.

  






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[vajradhatu108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- shempmcgurk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > on 9/20/06 10:18 AM, authfriend at jstein@
> > wrote:
> > >  
> > > > Quoting an earlier post from Vaj:
> > > > 
> > > > "At Estes Park Maharishi pointed out that there
> > really
> > > > was some effort in TM. He quoted the Vedas as
> > saying,
> > > > 'Be easy to us with gentle effort.'"
> > > > 
> > > > Obviously we'd need a great deal more context to
> > > > know whether Maharishi was using this quote to
> > > > describe TM as involving some effort.  Who is
> > being
> > > > addressed in the quote?  It appears to be a
> > request
> > > > of some kind, but who is making the request, and
> > > > of whom?  And how would one entity making a
> > request
> > > > of another entity to "be easy to us" relate to
> > TM?
> > > > 
> > > It related to TM. I was there. I had a feeling
> > that Maharishi was
> > > experimenting a bit by bringing up the quote. He
> > only mentioned it 
> > in one
> > > lecture.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > On my TTC at the end when we learned the last part
> > of the teaching, 
> > we met with MMY and he asked us if we had any
> > concerns before we 
> > went into that final phase.  A fellow from France
> > stood up and said 
> > that he had a problem with his own meditation: that
> > every time he 
> > thought the mantra that he wanted to shout it out.
> > 
> > After talking with him for a few minutes and sort of
> > diagnosing what 
> > the situation was, Maharishi said to him: okay, look
> > at my arm.  I 
> > want you to think the mantra every time I move my
> > arm up.  And then 
> > he started to, very slowly at first, move his arm up
> > and down.  Then 
> > he started doing it faster and then really fast. 
> > And then he 
> > started to giggle.
> > 
> > I forget what the outcome of all this was and
> > whether the French guy 
> > was satisfied but what struck me was that in order
> > to do what MMY 
> > said to do -- think the mantra every time he saw
> > MMY's arm go up -- 
> > that effort was involved.  Now, I know that this
> > whole episode was a 
> > sort of "clinic" and all and it was all in context
> > of this 
> > particular person's unusual meditation experience,
> > but that's what 
> > struck me at the time: that MMY gave an instruction
> > that necessarily 
> > required effort.
> 
> The problem is with the word "efffort." It implies a
> focused trying which is not how you do TM. I think a
> better word would be "intent." 

In yogic parlance, the word for effort is "prayatna". Effortless, is
aprayatna.

Technically speaking any process of meditation, subject and object
which are transcended, will require a path and some effort, some
intention. The only thing that is truly effortless is *nonmeditation.*

Other things indicative of effort would be any mental process (e.g.
subtler and subtler levels of mentation till conscious mentation
stops), awareness of a mental object, any "focus" whether conceptual
or non-conceptual, allurement or charm towards towards a calm or
transcendent state, etc.


That's not to say "effort is bad", is just part and parcel of
dualistic paths.

Reflexively authentic open awareness is not focused on any particular
object and this is why no effort is needed. Any "consciousness" by
necessity arises from causes, one of which is an object, even a subtle
object. Self-arisen wisdom does not need an object. In fact
effortless, nonmeditation requires *no subject or object.
*
(back to lurk mode)





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[Peter]

--- shempmcgurk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > on 9/20/06 10:18 AM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >  
> > > Quoting an earlier post from Vaj:
> > > 
> > > "At Estes Park Maharishi pointed out that there
> really
> > > was some effort in TM. He quoted the Vedas as
> saying,
> > > 'Be easy to us with gentle effort.'"
> > > 
> > > Obviously we'd need a great deal more context to
> > > know whether Maharishi was using this quote to
> > > describe TM as involving some effort.  Who is
> being
> > > addressed in the quote?  It appears to be a
> request
> > > of some kind, but who is making the request, and
> > > of whom?  And how would one entity making a
> request
> > > of another entity to "be easy to us" relate to
> TM?
> > > 
> > It related to TM. I was there. I had a feeling
> that Maharishi was
> > experimenting a bit by bringing up the quote. He
> only mentioned it 
> in one
> > lecture.
> >
> 
> 
> On my TTC at the end when we learned the last part
> of the teaching, 
> we met with MMY and he asked us if we had any
> concerns before we 
> went into that final phase.  A fellow from France
> stood up and said 
> that he had a problem with his own meditation: that
> every time he 
> thought the mantra that he wanted to shout it out.
> 
> After talking with him for a few minutes and sort of
> diagnosing what 
> the situation was, Maharishi said to him: okay, look
> at my arm.  I 
> want you to think the mantra every time I move my
> arm up.  And then 
> he started to, very slowly at first, move his arm up
> and down.  Then 
> he started doing it faster and then really fast. 
> And then he 
> started to giggle.
> 
> I forget what the outcome of all this was and
> whether the French guy 
> was satisfied but what struck me was that in order
> to do what MMY 
> said to do -- think the mantra every time he saw
> MMY's arm go up -- 
> that effort was involved.  Now, I know that this
> whole episode was a 
> sort of "clinic" and all and it was all in context
> of this 
> particular person's unusual meditation experience,
> but that's what 
> struck me at the time: that MMY gave an instruction
> that necessarily 
> required effort.

The problem is with the word "efffort." It implies a
focused trying which is not how you do TM. I think a
better word would be "intent." 






> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!' 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[hermandan0]

Thanks for the thoughful and articulate response. Well said. My snips
are due to brevity rather than assigning a value to certain parts.

I like your analogy of the rooms. It works well, and fits with both
experience and practice.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Until there is an understanding / foundational perspective /
> experience / lifeview that the intellect is functioning in its own
> domain, by its own rules and does not need "volition" from a "me".
> (See discussion with trinity some months back). This occurs when an
> indentity with "being the decison maker" dissolves. 

Thanks, I'll search for this.



> When effort is transcended, then the [meditation] process is what it
> is. It just is. Someone said it would not be "meditation" if the
> mantra does not appear, if some subtle effort is not made to go to the
> mantra. Experience disagrees, at least when effort has been
> transcended. Eyes close, vastness is. One can transcend on
> "nothingness". Which is a process that I beleive Vaj is refering to:
> objectless meditation. Though it is "paradoxical" -- in THAT process,
> what is transcending what?
>

Nicely put. This also mirrors my experience--sit, close the eyes,
silence, vastness. I downloaded one of the documents that Vaj posted a
link to some time back which describes successive stages of
meditation/transcending and found it very familiar. "Transcending on
nothingness" is a good way to put it, paradox, notwithstanding. Having
missed most of the earlier discussion with trinity you refer to (my
time for ffl is limited), I don't have a sense of how common that
experience is, either amongst long term TM practitioners, or
"having-moved-on" TMers, or non-TMers. 

Such experiences aren't part of the teachings of TM, even though they
seem to be a natural evolution. I don't think my experience can be
that uncommon.

Anyhow, thanks again for the insights and validation of experiences.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> > The thing is, you're speaking to a person who (as
> > far as I can tell) really *lives* in "Duh-land."
> 
> P.S.: Be aware that with Barry, you're speaking to
> a person who has an amazingly varied supply of
> fantasies about what TMers think and believe and
> even what they have said.  He has an enormously
> difficult time distinguishing them from the
> reality.
>

You forgot to tell us that he lies alot.  Has this never occured to 
you?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> on 9/20/06 10:18 AM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  
> > Quoting an earlier post from Vaj:
> > 
> > "At Estes Park Maharishi pointed out that there really
> > was some effort in TM. He quoted the Vedas as saying,
> > 'Be easy to us with gentle effort.'"
> > 
> > Obviously we'd need a great deal more context to
> > know whether Maharishi was using this quote to
> > describe TM as involving some effort.  Who is being
> > addressed in the quote?  It appears to be a request
> > of some kind, but who is making the request, and
> > of whom?  And how would one entity making a request
> > of another entity to "be easy to us" relate to TM?
> > 
> It related to TM. I was there. I had a feeling that Maharishi was
> experimenting a bit by bringing up the quote. He only mentioned it 
in one
> lecture.
>


On my TTC at the end when we learned the last part of the teaching, 
we met with MMY and he asked us if we had any concerns before we 
went into that final phase.  A fellow from France stood up and said 
that he had a problem with his own meditation: that every time he 
thought the mantra that he wanted to shout it out.

After talking with him for a few minutes and sort of diagnosing what 
the situation was, Maharishi said to him: okay, look at my arm.  I 
want you to think the mantra every time I move my arm up.  And then 
he started to, very slowly at first, move his arm up and down.  Then 
he started doing it faster and then really fast.  And then he 
started to giggle.

I forget what the outcome of all this was and whether the French guy 
was satisfied but what struck me was that in order to do what MMY 
said to do -- think the mantra every time he saw MMY's arm go up -- 
that effort was involved.  Now, I know that this whole episode was a 
sort of "clinic" and all and it was all in context of this 
particular person's unusual meditation experience, but that's what 
struck me at the time: that MMY gave an instruction that necessarily 
required effort.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  
> wrote:
> 
> > Related to TM, my view is that when the mind becomes aware,
> > effortless, that the mantra is not there, the intellect says "we
> > should think the mantra" and puts the mind in the mantra room. That
> > is a very small effort of the intellect (maybe).
> 
> > Until there is an understanding / foundational perspective /
> > experience / lifeview that the intellect is functioning in its own
> > domain, by its own rules and does not need "volition" from a "me".
> > (See discussion with trinity some months back). This occurs when an
> > indentity with "being the decison maker" dissolves. 
> > 
> > So from that clearer, more "awakened" perspective, there is not even
> > any effort on the part of the intellect. It -- the intellect -- and
> > its processes, just happen. Just as effortlessly as thoughts arise 
> > in the mind.
> 
> FWIW, I'm not convinced that the intellect functions
> at all in this situation, 

Perhaps "intellect" connates something (perhaps slightly) differnt to
you than to me. I am not referring to grand and deep analysis (shich
also is the domain of the intellect), but rather, something akin to
what a 3-cent micro chip might do, a yes/no monitoring function. To me
"intellect's" functions / processes can be at grand scale or very
mundane scale. 

>on its own or via "volition."

This is an additional quality stacked on the above. If there is
someone who IS the decider, (identifying with decision maker), then
there is volition, IMO, though sometimes it can seem pretty automatic.
In contrast, when there is NO individual entity who IS the decider,
(identifying with decision maker), then there is no volition. It is
clearly automatic.  

Perhaps I could restate the general premise: IF there is effort, it is
when the the intellect decides to go back to the mantra. Or per my
"model", the intellect moves the mind to the mantra room -- and allows
the conditions for the mantra to arise effortlessly. It may seem
automatic, and pavlovian -- due to repeated practice. Or one may
experince a slight volition, a slight effort of the intellect.

> In my own experience, it's more like a Pavlovian-type
> response to the realization that I'm not thinking the
> mantra.
 
> If the intellect is involved at all, it seems to me, it
> would be in the recognition that one is not thinking the
> mantra (i.e., discrimination between not-mantra and
> mantra). 

Yes its that. And its the decision to go back to the mantra. And this
may appear quite automatic.

>But that doesn't feel volitional either; it
> seems to be invoked automatically in response to the
> ending of a train of thought.

see above.
 
> I'd be hesitant to suggest, in my case, that this has
> anything to do with a more "awakened" perspective.

It may or may not. The automaticness is not the key distinguishing
factor. Many reptiles, that is just using reptile brain, react to
things "instinctively" -- automatically. As humans, we react to to
many things "by relex" automatically. This does not necessarily
indicate much.

The feature I was referring to is an understanding / foundational
perspective / experience / lifeview / realization that the intellect
is functioning in its own domain, by its own rules and does not need
"volition" from a "me" --- when an indentity with "being the decision
maker" dissolves. In that, the functioning of the intellect is always
known as automatic. In contrast, in the "I am the doer state"
automatic /reflex actions are there sometimes, and sometimes one feels
"I am the doer" -- acting with volition.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Whatever the provenance of the Estes Park quote and whether it
> is referring to effortless thinking of the mantra, Maharishi
> still said what I'm saying he did. Sorry, I can't quote you the 
> exact tape but it was one of the ushers on the course who raised 
> the point that thoughts just come into his head spontaneously
> and randomly, but the mantra *gets* thought and that seems to be
> a contradiction. MMY laughed and agreed it was a contradiction, 
> resloving it in the way I explained.

I'm not challenging that at all, except to say that
after some experience of TM, the mantra no longer
"gets thought" but arises spontaneously, just like
any other thought.

> >  but
> > > Maharishi was quite clear that there is some "doing" in
> > > the thinking/picking up of the mantra and that, yes, this
> > > is a contradictory to the mantra just appearing on its
> > > own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick up
> > > the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as
> > > effortessly as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking
> > > and of course thinking is doing. It may be an effortless
> > > doing, but it's a doing.
> > 
> > I think there may be a semantic issue here with
> > regard to "doing."  If, as you say, "doing" can be
> > effortless, it seems like a distinction without a
> > difference.
> 
> That's a good part of my point. The issue is largely semantic and
> that's why I said that IMO "it is not incorrect" to word it the way
> Vaj does. It's not a reason for denying the point.

If by "subtle effort" he means "effortless doing,"
then I wouldn't disagree with him.  But I don't think
that's what he means.  Remember he also says there is
"mindfulness" involved in realizing one isn't thinking
the mantra.


> > In my understanding, intentionally picking up the
> > mantra is done only when the mantra does not come
> > on its own.
> 
> Coming on its own is effortless thinking, yes. But if 
> it doesn't come on its own you pick it up--effortlessly.

Right.  That's the instruction for when it doesn't
come on its own.

> > In my experience, the recognition that I am not
> > thinking the mantra arises spontaneously, without
> > any intention or "mindfulness"; and the mantra
> > is there, also spontaneously, immediately following
> > that recognition.  At that point it would require
> > effort *not* to think the mantra.
> > 
> > This may not be what occurs for beginning TMers,
> > but I'd suggest that it becomes the case, for
> > most people, at least, after some experience of
> > TM practice.
> 
> Sure, the *effortless thinking* of the mantra becomes a
> well-established habit. But it is still thinking/picking
> up the mantra.

But there's no *volition* involved.  The thought
of no-mantra automatically invokes the thought of
mantra (sort of like "Don't think of an elephant"):
No mantra...mantra...mantra...mantra...








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> Related to TM, my view is that when the mind becomes aware,
> effortless, that the mantra is not there, the intellect says "we
> should think the mantra" and puts the mind in the mantra room. That
> is a very small effort of the intellect (maybe).

> Until there is an understanding / foundational perspective /
> experience / lifeview that the intellect is functioning in its own
> domain, by its own rules and does not need "volition" from a "me".
> (See discussion with trinity some months back). This occurs when an
> indentity with "being the decison maker" dissolves. 
> 
> So from that clearer, more "awakened" perspective, there is not even
> any effort on the part of the intellect. It -- the intellect -- and
> its processes, just happen. Just as effortlessly as thoughts arise 
> in the mind.

FWIW, I'm not convinced that the intellect functions
at all in this situation, on its own or via "volition."
In my own experience, it's more like a Pavlovian-type
response to the realization that I'm not thinking the
mantra.

If the intellect is involved at all, it seems to me, it
would be in the recognition that one is not thinking the
mantra (i.e., discrimination between not-mantra and
mantra). But that doesn't feel volitional either; it
seems to be invoked automatically in response to the
ending of a train of thought.

I'd be hesitant to suggest, in my case, that this has
anything to do with a more "awakened" perspective.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[hermandan0]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> 
> Quoting an earlier post from Vaj:
> 
> "At Estes Park Maharishi pointed out that there really
> was some effort in TM. He quoted the Vedas as saying,
> 'Be easy to us with gentle effort.'"
> 
> Obviously we'd need a great deal more context to
> know whether Maharishi was using this quote to
> describe TM as involving some effort.  Who is being
> addressed in the quote?  It appears to be a request
> of some kind, but who is making the request, and
> of whom?  And how would one entity making a request
> of another entity to "be easy to us" relate to TM?
> 
> There may be some connection, but it certainly isn't
> obvious without the context.

Whatever the provenance of the Estes Park quote and whether it is
referring to effortless thinking of the mantra, Maharishi still said
what I'm saying he did. Sorry, I can't quote you the exact tape but it
was one of the ushers on the course who raised the point that thoughts
just come into his head spontaneously and randomly, but the mantra
*gets* thought and that seems to be a contradiction. MMY laughed and
agreed it was a contradiction, resloving it in the way I explained.


>  but
> > Maharishi was quite clear that there is some "doing" in
> > the thinking/picking up of the mantra and that, yes, this
> > is a contradictory to the mantra just appearing on its
> > own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick up
> > the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as
> > effortessly as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking
> > and of course thinking is doing. It may be an effortless
> > doing, but it's a doing.
> 
> I think there may be a semantic issue here with
> regard to "doing."  If, as you say, "doing" can be
> effortless, it seems like a distinction without a
> difference.

That's a good part of my point. The issue is largely semantic and
that's why I said that IMO "it is not incorrect" to word it the way
Vaj does. It's not a reason for denying the point.

> Well, but is it effortless, as you say, or is it
> "subtle effort"?  *That* is a distinction that makes
> a *huge* difference.
> 
> MMY has also been very clear that even "subtle effort"
> interferes with transcending, so again there would
> appear to be a semantic issue.
> 

I think these are different things. Thinking the mantra effortlessly
is one thing. Trying to think the mantra a certain way or have an
intention to experience a certain thing, even on a subtle level, are
different things (and yes, they are incorrect in the practice of TM),
and not what the point under discussion is about. 


> In my understanding, intentionally picking up the
> mantra is done only when the mantra does not come
> on its own.

Coming on its own is effortless thinking, yes. But if it doesn't come
on its own you pick it up--effortlessly.

 
> In my experience, the recognition that I am not
> thinking the mantra arises spontaneously, without
> any intention or "mindfulness"; and the mantra
> is there, also spontaneously, immediately following
> that recognition.  At that point it would require
> effort *not* to think the mantra.
> 
> This may not be what occurs for beginning TMers,
> but I'd suggest that it becomes the case, for
> most people, at least, after some experience of
> TM practice.

Sure, the *effortless thinking* of the mantra becomes a
well-established habit. But it is still thinking/picking up the
mantra. Similarly, it may become an effortless remembrance to push in
the clutch when changing gears on a standard vehicle, but there would
be a lot of grinding, if you didn't do it.

hd






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started a new
> thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)

Thanks. I hope all can follow your inspirational example.

 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> 
>  
> > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > 
> > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > thing.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but Maharishi was
> quite clear that there is some "doing" in the thinking/picking up of
> the mantra and that, yes, this is a contradictory to the mantra just
> appearing on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick
> up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as effortessly
> as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking and of course thinking
> is doing. It may be an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
> 
> While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique of
> "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect in calling it
> "subtle effort" becaue of that doing. To misunderstand this puts one
> in the position of a meditator I once encountered who asked "What
> happens if you sit there for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra
> doesn't come?" Duh.


In my experience, thoughts come effortlessly. Thus, if one becomes
aware of the mantra as easily as one beomes aware of thoughts, there
is no effort. This is the domain of the mind. 

In contrast, the intellect interacts with mind when it deceides it
wants thoughts to appear in the mind about a particular topic. The
intellect, can and does, "make some effort". It can and does often put
the mind in a particular room -- the philosophy room, the errands
room, the career room, etc. When placed in a particular room, thoughts
tend to arise, effortlessly, about the topic area of the room. And
sometimes not -- aka daydreaming -- wide open windows in that room to
other areas.

Or the senses can feed the mind a lot of input, and thoughts arise
effortlessly in the mind -- thoughts about the input. The input
stimulates thoughts.

Related to TM, my view is that when the mind becomes aware,
effortless, that the mantra is not there, the intellect says "we
should think the mantra" and puts the mind in the mantra room. That is
a very small effort of the intellect (maybe). When in the mantra room,
the thought, even if very hazy, of the mantra appears effortlessly in
the mind. 

And sometimes not -- if the windows are wide open (smaksaras), or
there is a lot of sensory input which puts the mind in other rooms.
Then the cycle repeats, when the mind becomes aware, effortless, that
the mantra is not there, the intellect says "we should think the
mantra" and puts the mind in the mantra room

So IMO, IME, in TM there is total effortlessness in the domain of the
mind. And there is the subtlest of "effort" in the domain of the
intellect. So it is both effortless and minutely effortful.

Or maybe there is effort on the part of the intellect, maybe not , as
I qualified it before. There is effort in the domain of the intellect,
if there is identification with the decision-making function of the
intellect. That is, there is effort if there is a feeling, strong
sense, "I" am the decision-maker. Volition is effort. That is, either
a sense of being the same as the intellect, or of directing the
intellect. In that there is voliton, and in oliton there is effeort --
even if its slight. That is the "everyday" experience. Until ..

Until there is an understanding / foundational perspective /
experience / lifeview that the intellect is functioning in its own
domain, by its own rules and does not need "volition" from a "me".
(See discussion with trinity some months back). This occurs when an
indentity with "being the decison maker" dissolves. 

So from that clearer, more "awakened" perspective, there is not even
any effort on the part of the intellect. It -- the intellect -- and
its processes, just happen. Just as effortlessly as thoughts arise in
the mind.

When effort is transcended, then the [meditation] process is what it
is. It just is. Someone said it would not be "meditation" if the
mantra does not appear, if some subtle effort is not made to go to the
mantra. Experience disagrees, at least when effort has been
transcended. Eyes close, vastness is. One can transcend on
"nothingness". Which is a process that I beleive Vaj is refering to:
objectless meditation. Though it is "paradoxical" -- in THAT process,
what is transcending what?














To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started a new
> thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)

Thanks. I hope all can follow your inspirational example.

 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> 
>  
> > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > 
> > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > thing.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but Maharishi was
> quite clear that there is some "doing" in the thinking/picking up of
> the mantra and that, yes, this is a contradictory to the mantra just
> appearing on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick
> up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as effortessly
> as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking and of course thinking
> is doing. It may be an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
> 
> While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique of
> "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect in calling it
> "subtle effort" becaue of that doing. To misunderstand this puts one
> in the position of a meditator I once encountered who asked "What
> happens if you sit there for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra
> doesn't come?" Duh.


In my experience, thoughts come effortlessly. Thus, if one becomes
aware of the mantra as easily as one beomes aware of thoughts, there
is no effort. This is the domain of the mind. 

In contrast, the intellect interacts with mind when it deceides it
wants thoughts to appear in the mind about a particular topic. The
intellect, can and does, "make some effort". It can and does often put
the mind in a particular room -- the philosophy room, the errands
room, the career room, etc. When placed in a particular room, thoughts
tend to arise, effortlessly, about the topic area of the room. And
sometimes not -- aka daydreaming -- wide open windows in that room to
other areas.

Or the senses can feed the mind a lot of input, and thoughts arise
effortlessly in the mind -- thoughts about the input. The input
stimulates thoughts.

Related to TM, my view is that when the mind becomes aware,
effortless, that the mantra is not there, the intellect says "we
should think the mantra" and puts the mind in the mantra room. That is
a very small effort of the intellect (maybe). When in the mantra room,
the thought, even if very hazy, of the mantra appears effortlessly in
the mind. 

And sometimes not -- if the windows are wide open (smaksaras), or
there is a lot of sensory input which puts the mind in other rooms.
Then the cycle repeats, when the mind becomes aware, effortless, that
the mantra is not there, the intellect says "we should think the
mantra" and puts the mind in the mantra room

So IMO, IME, in TM there is total effortlessness in the domain of the
mind. And there is the subtlest of "effort" in the domain of the
intellect. So it is both effortless and minutely effortful.

Or maybe there is effort on the part of the intellect, maybe not , as
I qualified it before. There is effort in the domain of the intellect,
if there is identification with the decision-making function of the
intellect. That is, there is effort if there is a feeling, strong
sense, "I" am the decision-maker. Volition is effort. That is, either
a sense of being the same as the intellect, or of directing the
intellect. In that there is voliton, and in oliton there is effeort --
even if its slight. That is the "everyday" experience. Until ..

Until there is an understanding / foundational perspective /
experience / lifeview that the intellect is functioning in its own
domain, by its own rules and does not need "volition" from a "me".
(See discussion with trinity some months back). This occurs when an
indentity with "being the decison maker" dissolves. 

So from that clearer, more "awakened" perspective, there is not even
any effort on the part of the intellect. It -- the intellect -- and
its processes, just happen. Just as effortlessly as thoughts arise in
the mind.

When effort is transcended, then the [meditation] process is what it
is. It just is. Someone said it would not be "meditation" if the
mantra does not appear, if some subtle effort is not made to go to the
mantra. Experience disagrees, at least when effort has been
transcended. Eyes close, vastness is. One can transcend on
"nothingness". Which is a process that I beleive Vaj is refering to:
objectless meditation. Though it is "paradoxical" -- in THAT process,
what is transcending what?













To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
a

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> on 9/20/06 10:18 AM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  
> > Quoting an earlier post from Vaj:
> > 
> > "At Estes Park Maharishi pointed out that there really
> > was some effort in TM. He quoted the Vedas as saying,
> > 'Be easy to us with gentle effort.'"
> > 
> > Obviously we'd need a great deal more context to
> > know whether Maharishi was using this quote to
> > describe TM as involving some effort.  Who is being
> > addressed in the quote?  It appears to be a request
> > of some kind, but who is making the request, and
> > of whom?  And how would one entity making a request
> > of another entity to "be easy to us" relate to TM?
> > 
> It related to TM.

*How* did it relate to TM?  Can you answer the
questions I posed?

> I was there. I had a feeling that Maharishi was
> experimenting a bit by bringing up the quote. He only
> mentioned it in one lecture.

Experimenting how?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[Rick Archer]

Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness





on 9/20/06 10:18 AM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
Quoting an earlier post from Vaj:

"At Estes Park Maharishi pointed out that there really
was some effort in TM. He quoted the Vedas as saying,
'Be easy to us with gentle effort.'"

Obviously we'd need a great deal more context to
know whether Maharishi was using this quote to
describe TM as involving some effort.  Who is being
addressed in the quote?  It appears to be a request
of some kind, but who is making the request, and
of whom?  And how would one entity making a request
of another entity to "be easy to us" relate to TM?

It related to TM. I was there. I had a feeling that Maharishi was experimenting a bit by bringing up the quote. He only mentioned it in one lecture.

__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The thing is, you're speaking to a person who (as
> far as I can tell) really *lives* in "Duh-land."

P.S.: Be aware that with Barry, you're speaking to
a person who has an amazingly varied supply of
fantasies about what TMers think and believe and
even what they have said.  He has an enormously
difficult time distinguishing them from the
reality.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0  wrote:
> >
> > trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started 
> > a new thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
> 
> Good plan.
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> > 
> >  
> > > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > > 
> > > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > > thing.
> > 
> > I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but 
> > Maharishi was quite clear that there is some "doing" 
> > in the thinking/picking up of the mantra and that, yes, 
> > this is a contradictory to the mantra just appearing 
> > on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or 
> > pick up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" 
> > or "as effortessly as a thought comes". Of course one 
> > is thinking and of course thinking is doing. It may be 
> > an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
> > 
> > While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a 
> > technique of "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, 
> > not incorrect in calling it "subtle effort" becaue of 
> > that doing. To misunderstand this puts one in the 
> > position of a meditator I once encountered who asked 
> > "What happens if you sit there for the entire 20 
> > minutes and the mantra doesn't come?" Duh.
> 
> The thing is, you're speaking to a person who (as
> far as I can tell) really *lives* in "Duh-land."
> She probably *believes* that if she sat there for
> 20 minutes and the mantra doesn't "come" that she's
> actually meditating.  :-)

Um, no, I certainly don't believe that.

> The thing is, some people -- fearful types -- got
> so terrorized by the TM dogma that "effort is bad"
> that now they can't admit that there is some subtle
> effort involved with TM, EVEN WHEN MAHARISHI
> SAY IT. They hear him saying it and they feel 
> that they have to come up with amazingly outlandish
> "explanations" for what he "really" meant, and how
> he couldn't *possibly* have been suggesting that
> TM involves some effort or that effort is good.

Quote, please, of MMY saying there is some subtle
effort involved with TM, with context.

> In other words, for these people the dogma of 
> "effortlessness" has become more important than 
> the obvious reality of subtle effort. 
> 
> OF COURSE there is some subtle effort in TM. But
> don't tell the "Duh" folks here (Sparaig and Judy),
> because it's MUCH more fun watching them jump 
> through hoops trying to tell everyone that Maharishi
> didn't really mean what he said, and that they know
> better.  :-)  :-)  :-)

Quotes, please, from Lawson's and/or my posts in
which we jump through hoops trying to tell everyone
that Maharishi didn't mean what he said.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started a 
new
> thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> 
>  
> > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > 
> > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > thing.
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is,

Quoting an earlier post from Vaj:

"At Estes Park Maharishi pointed out that there really
was some effort in TM. He quoted the Vedas as saying,
'Be easy to us with gentle effort.'"

Obviously we'd need a great deal more context to
know whether Maharishi was using this quote to
describe TM as involving some effort.  Who is being
addressed in the quote?  It appears to be a request
of some kind, but who is making the request, and
of whom?  And how would one entity making a request
of another entity to "be easy to us" relate to TM?

There may be some connection, but it certainly isn't
obvious without the context.

 but
> Maharishi was quite clear that there is some "doing" in
> the thinking/picking up of the mantra and that, yes, this
> is a contradictory to the mantra just appearing on its
> own. That's why the the instruction to think or pick up
> the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" or "as
> effortessly as a thought comes". Of course one is thinking
> and of course thinking is doing. It may be an effortless
> doing, but it's a doing.

I think there may be a semantic issue here with
regard to "doing."  If, as you say, "doing" can be
effortless, it seems like a distinction without a
difference.

> While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a technique
> of "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, not incorrect
> in calling it "subtle effort" becaue of that doing.

Well, but is it effortless, as you say, or is it
"subtle effort"?  *That* is a distinction that makes
a *huge* difference.

MMY has also been very clear that even "subtle effort"
interferes with transcending, so again there would
appear to be a semantic issue.

> To misunderstand this puts one
> in the position of a meditator I once encountered who asked "What
> happens if you sit there for the entire 20 minutes and the mantra
> doesn't come?" Duh.

In my understanding, intentionally picking up the
mantra is done only when the mantra does not come
on its own.

In my experience, the recognition that I am not
thinking the mantra arises spontaneously, without
any intention or "mindfulness"; and the mantra
is there, also spontaneously, immediately following
that recognition.  At that point it would require
effort *not* to think the mantra.

This may not be what occurs for beginning TMers,
but I'd suggest that it becomes the case, for
most people, at least, after some experience of
TM practice.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: effortlessness

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> trying to follow new.mornings posting inspirations, i've started 
> a new thread instead of intjecting this into the old one :)

Good plan.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" 
> 
>  
> > > Any meditation technique that relies on a object
> > > of meditation, a mantra, the breath, etc. will by
> > > it's very nature have some subtle effort (as Mahesh
> > > acknowledged at Estes Park in regard to TM).* 
> > 
> > Of course, it's never been established that what he
> > said at Estes Park ever "acknowledged" any such
> > thing.
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what the Estes Park quote is, but 
> Maharishi was quite clear that there is some "doing" 
> in the thinking/picking up of the mantra and that, yes, 
> this is a contradictory to the mantra just appearing 
> on its own. That's why the the instruction to think or 
> pick up the mantra is qualified by saying "effortlessy" 
> or "as effortessly as a thought comes". Of course one 
> is thinking and of course thinking is doing. It may be 
> an effortless doing, but it's a doing.
> 
> While it may not be fair to dismiss TM as being a 
> technique of "effort" on account of that, vaj is, IMO, 
> not incorrect in calling it "subtle effort" becaue of 
> that doing. To misunderstand this puts one in the 
> position of a meditator I once encountered who asked 
> "What happens if you sit there for the entire 20 
> minutes and the mantra doesn't come?" Duh.

The thing is, you're speaking to a person who (as
far as I can tell) really *lives* in "Duh-land."
She probably *believes* that if she sat there for
20 minutes and the mantra doesn't "come" that she's
actually meditating.  :-)

The thing is, some people -- fearful types -- got
so terrorized by the TM dogma that "effort is bad"
that now they can't admit that there is some subtle
effort involved with TM, EVEN WHEN MAHARISHI
SAY IT. They hear him saying it and they feel 
that they have to come up with amazingly outlandish
"explanations" for what he "really" meant, and how
he couldn't *possibly* have been suggesting that
TM involves some effort or that effort is good.

In other words, for these people the dogma of 
"effortlessness" has become more important than 
the obvious reality of subtle effort. 

OF COURSE there is some subtle effort in TM. But
don't tell the "Duh" folks here (Sparaig and Judy),
because it's MUCH more fun watching them jump 
through hoops trying to tell everyone that Maharishi
didn't really mean what he said, and that they know
better.  :-)  :-)  :-)









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/