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
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 "dha
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 th
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!
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 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 "d
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 dis
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 d
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 t
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 mi
On Mar 13, 2006, at 6:38 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 be
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
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 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In any event, the point here is that unles
On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:44 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj 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
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 disfigur
On Mar 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
>
> > they're simply people responding to the post reagrding some style
> > of mindfullness or some simple adjustment that prevented "laxity"
> > or sleep during meditation. It's an important problem--even in the
> > dome in FF--so people responded
Another good reason to use an email program rather than a web browser to answer your mail! :-)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 or some subtle meditationa
On Mar 10, 2006, at 5:49 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > > If there weren't such confusion, you'd be able to
> > > respond straightforwardly to the points I'm
> > > making, pro or con. Not only can you not do so, you
> > > repeatedly attempt to shift ground or otherwise
> > > obscure the debate.
> > >
On Mar 10, 2006, at 1:42 PM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 10, 2006, at 10:58 AM, authfriend wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 9, 2006, at 8:42 PM, authfri
On Mar 10, 2006, at 10:58 AM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 9, 2006, at 8:42 PM, authfriend wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 9, 2006, at 6:38 PM, authfrie
On Mar 10, 2006, at 3:56 AM, Ingegerd wrote:
> When I learned TM (Deep Meditation) in 1962, by the first meditation
> teacher in Norway, we learned to concentrate about the Mantra. Some
> years after - the instruction became "Don't concentrate", and the
> checking points came out.
> Ingegerd
Tha
On Mar 9, 2006, at 8:42 PM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 9, 2006, at 6:38 PM, authfriend wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow, tat's a lot of words!
> > >
> > > Which yo
> BS. You're supposed to start by thinking something
> in particular (the mantra).
And don't rush it or you will give yourself head
strain.
--- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogr
On Mar 9, 2006, at 6:38 PM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Wow, tat's a lot of words!
>
> Which you obviously don't want to deal with. Especially
> your oh-so-convenient forgettery with regard to your post
> on the checking procedu
On Mar 9, 2006, at 5:00 PM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 9, 2006, at 2:12 PM, authfriend wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:00 PM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> > >
On Mar 9, 2006, at 4:57 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > > On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:00 PM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> > >
> > > > I genuinely want to know which techniques out there a
Original quote :Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and the Disease of EffortRick ArcherThu, 19 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700on 5/19/05 8:04 AM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > On May 19, 2005, at 8:49 AM, claudiouk wrote:> >> For comparison's sake, what then would be the instructions for a truly>> effortles
On Mar 9, 2006, at 5:36 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> You read something and said "TM requried some effort" according to
> MMY.
>
> I'm asking for the exact words where MMY said that TM "required"
> effort.
Your playing semantical games again L. You already have your answer,
now relax and live with i
On Mar 9, 2006, at 5:27 PM, sparaig wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 9, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
> >
> > > on 3/9/06 1:22 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Even M. admitted this at Estes Park--that T
On Mar 9, 2006, at 5:27 PM, sparaig wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 9, 2006, at 2:22 PM, sparaig wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:00 PM, shempmcgurk w
On Mar 9, 2006, at 5:18 PM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 9, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
> >
> > > on 3/9/06 1:22 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Even M. admitted this at Estes Park--tha
On Mar 9, 2006, at 5:03 PM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 9, 2006, at 2:22 PM, sparaig wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:00 PM, shempmcgur
On Mar 9, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Rick Archer wrote:on 3/9/06 1:22 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even M. admitted this at Estes Park--that TM required some effort. So what did he say exactly? He quoted some verse from the Vedas, which maybe Cardemeister can find, which reads, "Be easy to
On Mar 9, 2006, at 2:22 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:00 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: I genuinely want to know which techniques out there are effortless and do not require concentration. You must've missed the "TM is not
on 3/9/06 1:22 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Even M. admitted this at Estes Park--that TM required some effort.
>>
>
> So what did he say exactly?
He quoted some verse from the Vedas, which maybe Cardemeister can find,
which reads, "Be easy to us with gentle effort."
---
On Mar 9, 2006, at 2:12 PM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:00 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: I genuinely want to know which techniques out there are effortless and do not require concentration. You must've missed the "TM is n
On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:00 PM, shempmcgurk wrote:I genuinely want to know which techniques out there are effortless and do not require concentration. You must've missed the "TM is not effortless" thread here sometime ago. TM is *easy* but not truly effortless. And there are many *easy* meditation m
--- shempmcgurk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick
> Gillam"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> somebody wrote:
> > >>
> > > > Did you do TM before you tried
> > > > the other
> > > > techniques? If yes, might this have helped
> your
> > > > resul
--- shempmcgurk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- jim_flanegin wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.
--- Marek Reavis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> **Comment below:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick
> Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> **SNIP**
> >
> > The premise of TM is that it enriches all areas of
> life
> > because it "enlivens" the substrate of life, pure
> >
--- markmeredith2002 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick
> Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >> somebody wrote:
> > >>
> > > > Did you do TM before you tried
> > > > the other
> > > > techniques? If yes, might this have helped
> your
> > > > r
On Mar 7, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Patrick Gillam wrote:The premise of TM is that it enriches all areas of life because it "enlivens" the substrate of life, pure consciousness. We don't notice consciousness is missing because it's flat and featureless. Maharishi said this is the one experience that
--- jim_flanegin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think the point here is "different strokes for
> > different folks". All of us that grew-up in the
> TMO
> > just blindly accepted that TM was good for
> everybody
> >
I think the point here is "different strokes for
different folks". All of us that grew-up in the TMO
just blindly accepted that TM was good for everybody
and that TM was the "best" technique around. Of course
this is a very immature position. Many people enjoy TM
and seek nothing else. Others give
> Yeah, long time ago. Did you do TM before you tried
> the other
> techniques? If yes, might this have helped your
> results?
Yes, I did TM for twenty years before I got involved
with any other techniques. I learned TM in 1974 and
the sidhis in 1977. In 1983 and 1984, I learned reiki,
and tha
> Perhaps
> your initiation
> was invalid. (performed by a poor transmitter of
> Shakti).
I'm certain the initiation was valid, because I did
feel consistent growth through regular daily practice
of TM and numerous short residence courses during the
three years leading up to the sidhis. Plus, t
In a message dated 3/5/06 9:30:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Yeah , but did he look bored when namasting
back?>Or was it just a half or quarter Namaste? You
know, kinda like Hitler giving back the "heil" when underlings Heil
Hitlered him...underli
> In India people Namaste each other as a sign of
> mutual respect. In the
> photos I saw, Nader wasn't reciprocating. He was
> sitting on his throne and
> everyone else was bowing and scraping.
Perhaps Tony was giving them darshan. :)
--- Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> on 3/5/06 2:3
> I must respectfully disagree with you there. I
> personally tried a
> few different technicques before learning TM
But when did you learn TM? Was this a long time ago?
There wasn't much available besides TM in the 1960s
and 1970s. The landscape has changed - dramatically -
in the past decade.
In a message dated 3/5/06 6:18:18 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In India
people Namaste each other as a sign of mutual respect. In> the photos I
saw, Nader wasn't reciprocating. He was sitting on his > throne and
everyone else was bowing and scraping.I've see
Ah, it's good to be the King.
Sal
On Mar 5, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
In India people Namaste each other as a sign of mutual respect. In the
photos I saw, Nader wasn't reciprocating. He was sitting on his throne and
everyone else was bowing and scraping.
on 3/5/06 2:35 PM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> on 3/5/06 11:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Hehehehe, Is it true that recerts have to bow before the Rajas?
>>> What i
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does T/M cost so much to join? A little help?
on 3/5/06 11:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Hehehehe, Is it true that recerts have to bow before the Rajas? What if you refused to bow before them? I think I might be more inclined
In a message dated 3/5/06 11:08:32 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:>> Yeah, but it's so much more fun to create Rajas.
I mean, don't you > have fantasies of dressing up in a robe and
Yeah, but it's so much more fun to create Rajas. I mean, don't you have fantasies of dressing up in a robe and crown and going out in public? :)
Sal
On Mar 5, 2006, at 7:37 AM, wayback71 wrote:
I
suspect he is making enough from selling real estate and from the "donations" that people
make
55 matches
Mail list logo
