--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:30 AM, new.morning wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Apr 18, 2008, at 1:20 AM, sparaig wrote: > >> > >>> traditionally it has no meaning: its > >>> just a sound whose effects are known to be good. > >> > >> > >> Actually, traditionally, it does have a meaning as is witnessed by > >> the numerous bija dictionaries which define their meanings in some > >> detail. > >> > > > > Which of course every new TM student has sitting around in the > > backseat of their car so they can get their full money's worth and > > figure out how to do the the REAL TM by fully understanding their bija > > mantra. Right? > >
> Wrong. TM does not require that you know the meaning of your mantra, > in fact they want you to believe it's a "meaningless sound". > > But it's simply not true. > > Why spread lies when we don't have to? > ************* The correct use of the mantra in TM is as a meaningless sound, whether one is a Hindu or not. If somebody is assigning meaning to the mantra in meditation (and not innocently returning to the mantra as meaningless sound), then they are not practicing TM (which relies on the resonant power of the mantra in a way that is far beyond meaning, in order to transcend the limiting mind). Outside of the context of TM, people can assign any meaning they want to any sound, but this does not make the mantra in TM anything other than a meaningless sound during TM.
