--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, defenders_of_bhakti
no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
We don't pound the mantra. We don't mind if the mantra fades
or
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
snip
For the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 16, 2006, at 1:25 PM, defenders_of_bhakti wrote:
The Mantra comes by itself, it goes by itself,
and it returns by itself,once the awareness of no-mantra came by
itself.
And this is linked to the idea of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, defenders_of_bhakti
no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@
wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:07 PM, sparaig wrote:
Correct it does not describe the technique of manasika-japa/TM
but
merely defines mindfulness in a broad context of practice.
Insomuch as TM involves awareness, then
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:13 PM, authfriend wrote:
I'm familiar with it in the context of the TM-Sidhis.
Where is this official movement translation of the
term to be found in the context of plain-vanilla TM?
Steadiness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:36 AM, sparaig wrote:
Huh, but one can have the outward stroke
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any
style of meditation where you have an object of focus
Which excludes TM, since TM doesn't involve focusing.
In terms of process, it is the point you return to
irregardless.
Focus
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:07 PM, sparaig wrote:
You seemed to believe thatthat could NOT be a valid meditation
session, or so your good luck with that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:36
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
[...]
Except, of course, I'm only talking about TM.
So? You have a *theory* as to what constitutes an
effective meditation session. that *theory* just
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
snip
Just my two centimes...I'm just trying to suggest
that there is room for people to believe different
things about meditation and how it works.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:07 PM, sparaig wrote:
You seemed to believe thatthat could NOT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
snip
Just my two centimes...I'm just trying to suggest
that there is room for
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
[...]
Except, of course, I'm only talking about TM.
So? You have a *theory* as to what
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you believe that you can separate yourself into an innocent
practioner who disagrees with the explanation that any experience is
valid during TM practice and a theoretician who does NOT believe this?
SHould read:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@
wrote:
[...]
Except, of
Which goes back to MY point that any theory that
attempts to explain TM must preserve the anything
goes/effortlessness nature of the technique, or
it morphs into something else.
No, it doesn't. One could still be practicing TM
*exactly* as taught and believe what Vaj and I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which goes back to MY point that any theory that
attempts to explain TM must preserve the anything
goes/effortlessness nature of the technique, or
it morphs into something else.
No, it doesn't. One
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@
wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@
wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
That doesn't say anything about the effectivness of the
technique, though of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:00 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:13 PM,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
In any
style of meditation where you have an object of focus
Which excludes TM, since TM doesn't involve focusing.
In terms of
On Mar 16, 2006, at 10:13 AM, authfriend wrote:
Note that to start with, Vaj had claimed that focus
was the official movement translation of dharana.
When I asked where this official translation was to be
found, he switched to claiming steadiness was the
term TMers used for dharana. When I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@
wrote:
That doesn't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:00 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@
wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
He may or may not be referring to dharana in this instance--I don't
really care--it certainly fits experientially for those familiar
with
this state of steadiness and inner focus. However he clearly uses
that word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@
wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
snip
There's a difference. Believing in a different theory
doesn't mean that the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
sure, whatever. But once you start assigning value
judgements to one set of experiences over another,
you're no longer practicing TM.
Read my
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@
wrote:
[...]
Except, of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
snip
They don't have to accept ANY dogma about TM, but if they start
assigning greater significance to one set of experiences over
another, then by
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
snip
That's just your cult paranoia shining through. :-)
Or yours.
Well, dude...I'm not the one up at 3:44 a.m. ranting
on the Internet,
When the discussion started, the issue was (1). Vaj
had claimed that TMATBMMY required effort. Lawson
and I were disputing that claim.
Vaj said:
I like Asanga's definition of mindfulness which shows how
appropriate the description is in regards to manasika-japa/TM:
What is mindfulness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We don't pound the mantra. We don't mind if the mantra fades
or slips away. We take it as it comes.
We don't mind if the mind is off on a thought; when we realize we
are off on a thought, we quietly come back to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel
babajii_99@ wrote:
[I wrote:]
When the discussion started, the issue was (1). Vaj
had claimed that TMATBMMY required effort. Lawson
and I were
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, defenders_of_bhakti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
We don't pound the mantra. We don't mind if the mantra fades
or slips away. We take it as it comes.
We don't mind if the mind is off on
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philisophical point: is it possible for someone in CC to practice
anything OTHER THAN Transcendental Meditation?
Completely depends on your definition of TM: If you define TM from the
result, i.e. transcending, then he is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, defenders_of_bhakti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
We don't pound the mantra. We don't mind if the mantra fades
or slips away. We take it as it comes.
We don't mind if the mind is off on
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel
babajii_99@ wrote:
[I wrote:]
When the discussion started, the issue was (1). Vaj
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
snip
For the record, my experience is that the realization
that I was off on a
On Mar 16, 2006, at 1:25 PM, defenders_of_bhakti wrote:
The Mantra comes by itself, it goes by itself,
and it returns by itself,once the awareness of no-mantra came by
itself.
And this is linked to the idea of memory, smrti. Interestingly this
same word, smrti, is also the Sanskrit word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 16, 2006, at 1:25 PM, defenders_of_bhakti wrote:
The Mantra comes by itself, it goes by itself,
and it returns by itself,once the awareness of no-mantra came by
itself.
And this is linked to the idea of
Comment below:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
**SNIP**
For the record, my experience is that the realization
that I was off on a thought is enough to evoke the mantra;
there's no intervening intention to think it.
My own belief is that
--- Comment on statement below that mantras are naturally on subtle
levels. Yes, but only insofar as the names of the Gods are present,
universally, since the TM mantras are the seed names of the Gods. But
going back to Plato, he believed that Forms are present naturally as
archtypical concepts in
At Estes Park, M quoted the Vedas as saying, Be easy to us with
gentle
effort.
Somehow sounds to me like Rgveda. Compare to the last
line of the first suukta (Agni):
sacasvaa naH svastaye (Abide with us for our well-being.)
(Macdonell)
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 14, 2006, at 6:05 PM, sparaig wrote:
But even someportion of some concentrative technique is
effortless so
what is the difference then? MMY has set up a training procedure
that
helps bring people to a state of
On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:23 AM, authfriend wrote:
Vaj, Rick says explicitly in what you quote that effort
is inappropriate even at subtle levels.
I don't know what he means by either attentiveness
or laxity, and I wish he'd expand a bit. I can't
figure out what they would have to do with TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:23 AM, authfriend wrote:
Vaj, Rick says explicitly in what you quote that effort
is inappropriate even at subtle levels.
I don't know what he means by either attentiveness
or laxity, and I
On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:36 AM, sparaig wrote:
Huh, but one can have the outward stroke for the full 20 minutes of
TM practice and still be practicing TM absolutely correctly.
Good luck with that!
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--
Join modern day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:23 AM, authfriend wrote:
Vaj, Rick says explicitly in what you quote that effort
is inappropriate even at subtle levels.
I don't know what he means by either attentiveness
or laxity, and I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:36 AM, sparaig wrote:
Huh, but one can have the outward stroke for the full 20 minutes
of
TM practice and still be practicing TM absolutely correctly.
Good luck with that!
So Judy and I have
On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:23 PM, authfriend wrote:
In any
style of meditation where you have an object of focus
Which excludes TM, since TM doesn't involve focusing.
In terms of process, it is the point you return to irregardless.
Focus here being an english trans. of the Sanskrit dharana
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:23 PM, authfriend wrote:
In any
style of meditation where you have an object of focus
Which excludes TM, since TM doesn't involve focusing.
In terms of process, it is the point you return
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:23 PM, authfriend wrote:
In any
style of meditation where you have an object of focus
Which excludes TM, since TM doesn't involve focusing.
In terms of process, it is the point you return
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:07 PM, sparaig wrote:
Correct it does not describe the technique of manasika-japa/TM but
merely defines mindfulness in a broad context of practice.
Insomuch as TM involves awareness, then you can say its mindfulness.
Precisely.
Beyond that, depends on the
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:13 PM, authfriend wrote:
I'm familiar with it in the context of the TM-Sidhis.
Where is this official movement translation of the
term to be found in the context of plain-vanilla TM?
Steadiness is a popular TMer word for dharana.
Yahoo!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:13 PM, authfriend wrote:
I'm familiar with it in the context of the TM-Sidhis.
Where is this official movement translation of the
term to be found in the context of plain-vanilla TM?
Steadiness
On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:00 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:13 PM, authfriend wrote:
I'm familiar with it in the context of the TM-Sidhis.
Where is this official movement translation of the
term to be
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:00 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@
wrote:
In any style of meditation where you have an object of
focus
Which
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:00 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:13 PM, authfriend wrote:
I'm familiar with it in the context of the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:00 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:13 PM,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:36 AM, sparaig wrote:
Huh, but one can have the outward stroke for the full
20 minutes of TM practice and still be practicing TM
In any
style of meditation where you have an object of focus
Which excludes TM, since TM doesn't involve focusing.
In terms of process, it is the point you return to
irregardless.
Focus here being an english trans. of the Sanskrit dharana or
focus of attention in the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:07 PM, sparaig wrote:
You seemed to believe thatthat could NOT be a valid meditation
session, or so your good luck with that response suggests.
This is an erroneous conclusion. It may well be for you
On Mar 13, 2006, at 11:25 PM, sparaig wrote:
Yeah, but as I say, effortlessness in the TM sense
*can't* be an expectation. You can only expect
*something*, you can't expect *nothing*. Or to put
it another way, any expectation of effortlessness
that you might have wouldn't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
0 I did say in that in the early stages there may be
some very slight effort until the automatic cycle
is established.
What if that automatic cycle is NEVER established? Does this
mean
that someone is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
0 I did say in that in the early stages there may be
some very slight effort until the automatic cycle
is established.
What if that automatic cycle is NEVER established? Does this
mean
that someone is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 11:25 PM, sparaig wrote:
Yeah, but as I say, effortlessness in the TM sense
*can't* be an expectation. You can only expect
*something*, you can't expect *nothing*. Or to put
it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@
wrote:
0 I did say in that in the early stages there may be
some very slight effort until the automatic cycle
is established.
What if that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
What I'm contending is that only when TM is 100
percent effortless is one actually practicing TM.
So in a given session, I may be practicing TM only
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@
wrote:
0 I did say in that in the early stages there may be
some very slight effort until the automatic cycle
is established.
What if that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
snip
What I'm contending is that only when TM is 100
percent effortless is one
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
snip
What I'm
On Mar 14, 2006, at 6:05 PM, sparaig wrote:But even someportion of some concentrative technique is effortless so what is the difference then? MMY has set up a training procedure that helps bring people to a state of "letting" better than concentration, but if someone using some slight effort in
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 14, 2006, at 6:05 PM, sparaig wrote:
But even someportion of some concentrative technique is
effortless so
what is the difference then? MMY has set up a training procedure
that
helps bring people to a state of
On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:41 AM, sparaig wrote:
Of course, we TBers wanna know WHY you're insisting on adding layers
of complexity to simplicity...
Yeah SCI was real succinct.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured
On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:44 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
In any event, the point here is that unless one is doing
a non-dual form of quiescence/transcendence meditation,
there will--by it's very nature always be not only some
dualism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
[...]
True, but not necessarily sad, if you mean they're not
experiencing transcendental consciousness by itself. If
the process never becomes automatic,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
In any event, the point here is that unless one is doing
a non-dual form of quiescence/transcendence meditation,
there will--by it's very nature
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:41 AM, sparaig wrote:
Of course, we TBers wanna know WHY you're insisting on adding layers
of complexity to simplicity...
Yeah SCI was real succinct.
SCI isn't about the *technique* per se.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:44 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
In any event, the point here is that unless one is doing
a non-dual form of quiescence/transcendence
On Mar 13, 2006, at 9:50 AM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:44 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
In any event, the point here is that unless one is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:41 AM, sparaig wrote:
Of course, we TBers wanna know WHY you're insisting on adding layers
of complexity to simplicity...
Yeah SCI was real succinct.
Seemed that way to me then (1974-ish), and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
[...]
True, but not necessarily sad, if you mean they're not
experiencing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 9:50 AM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:44 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:41 AM, sparaig wrote:
Of course, we TBers wanna know WHY you're insisting on adding
layers
of complexity to simplicity...
On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:49 AM, sparaig wrote:
Essentially the same thing, although as already noted the
technique
can continue beyond where TM would normally go, essentially
expanding
the gap for extended periods of time. Afflictive emotional
states
tend to subside as well as negative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:49 AM, sparaig wrote:
Essentially the same thing, although as already noted the
technique
can continue beyond where TM would normally go, essentially
expanding
the gap for extended periods
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
[...]
True, but
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:41 AM, sparaig wrote:
Of course, we TBers wanna know WHY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At one point, clergypersons were required...
Just as a suggestion, doncha think 'clergy'
avoids the gender issue just fine, and without
sounding so politically correct and silly?
...to take the
SCI course before they
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
At one point, clergypersons were required...
Just as a suggestion, doncha think 'clergy'
avoids the gender issue just fine, and without
sounding
1 - 100 of 281 matches
Mail list logo
