Lawson.
You do not seem to understand SSRS's instructions about meditation with
a mantra. Is this because you have never heard those instructions?
SSRS pointed out that a meditator does not need to place attention back
upon the mantra during meditation just because they become aware they
are not thinking the mantra. Recognition of not thinking
the mantra does not itself constitute a requirement to think
the mantra. Likewise, the realization of not thinking the
mantra does not, in itself, constitute a form of
thinking.
The reason is simple. The nature of awareness is witnessing
(sakshi-jñana). This is pure Vedanta.
When the field of experience subsides with the ceasing (nirodha) of
every external or internal experience, including the termination of
I-consciousness (aham-pratyaya), what remains is the awareness that is
naturally present as the inner self (pratyag-atman).
Awareness is a seer (drista). It is not the cognizer of a cognitive
activity (pramata). It is not a knower (jñaatri), a doer (kartri) or
an enjoyer (bhoktri) but rather is knowingness itself. The seer is the
witness-consciousness (sakshin) which witnesses the ending of all forms
of experience during meditation and simply remains as is, uninvolved and
prior to all experience.
SSRS's instruction is founded upon this realization and is the
pointing-out instruction which allows meditators to remain as they truly
are. They remain, during this period of silent awareness, as
sheer seeing (dristi-matrataa) until cognitive, affective or sensory
activity causes limited identification once again.
Thus recognizing or remembering the mantra occurs as a natural
consequence rather than from a demand to think the mantra.
\
..
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote:
[...]
Though it proly would not work for TM to broadside SSRavi
Shankar as his meditation is so like TM; evidently is also 'effortless'
though he uses different mantras. Can't pick the same fight over
'effortlessness' that way as with the Buddhists so evidently AOL for as
large as it is, is strategically ignored.
From what I hear, SSRS has decided that people should not bother
returning to the mantra if they find themselves in pure consciousness.
That is an important distinction, if correct, and to me, it misses the
point of TM:
Well, 'pure consciousness' is one of those correct experiences of
meditation listed in the TM second nite lecture.
Pure consciousness during TM is no more or less correct than falling
asleep or having an itch.
Sitting activated by transcending in Brahman could be that too.
Though yours is an interesting explanation about how some TM'ers can
look so spiritually anemic after decades of their mental practice
interrupting their silence coming back to the mantra. Possbly explains
why folks may have withered away from meditating for lack of cultivated
experience. It is an interesting distinction in the sublimity of
meditation practice. Of course, constantly coming back to a mantra
dovetails for someone disposed with an active mind as in, 'keep on
keeping on'. It gives them something to do. It seems some have done
that for decades based on instruction. You make a really interesting
distinction.
So you agree with SSRS on this, i take it. Been checked lately?
if you can notice you are not thinking the mantra, you are no
longer in PC anyway, so there's no point in enjoying it, as you aren't
really there. You're just fooling yourself.
Om,and who is fooling who with that description?
WHo is not fooling who for that matter?
Are you trying to make some point or merely score points?
BTW, I know that people like to think that SSRS has taught many
millions to meditate, but in fact, the group meditation that he led a
few years ago, as far as I can tell, was just a do your own thing. It
wasn't that many people practicing what his organization teaches. ANd
the primary focus of the AOL is breathing exercise, not meditation, as I
understand it.
L.
