--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <jpgil...@...> wrote:
>
> Comment inserted below...
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > I haven't been following this thread, and Vaj has
> > > > probably quoted this, but on my TTC (Estes Park,
> > > > 1970) I clearly remember Maharishi quoting the Vedas
> > > > as saying, "Be easy to us with gentle effort."
> > >
> > [I wrote:]
> > > Which (as I've pointed out before) is virtually
> > > meaningless without context (both of the quote
> > > itself and how MMY was using it).
> > >
> > > To claim that this quote in and of itself, without
> > > those contexts, constitutes an "admission" by MMY
> > > that TM involves effort is just off the wall.
> > >
> > [Rick wrote:]
> > > The context was that MMY was saying that TM does involve
> > > a sort of effort, but that it is such a gentle effort
> > > that we don't use the term effort. Thought is effortless
> > > once it starts flowing, but if we're thinking about
> > > one thing and need to be thinking about another, (e.g.,
> > > we're looking out the window and we should be listening
> > > to the lecture), some will is involved in shifting the
> > > attention back. We all know the analogy of the attention
> > > spontaneously shifting to the more pleasing melody, but
> > > it doesn't always work that way. The mind may prefer
> > > daydreaming to coming back to the mantra, but
> > > nonetheless, we apply gentle effort, an act of will, to
> > > come back to the mantra.
> >
> > This appears, then, to be a matter of "exception
> > handling," when we're aware we aren't attending to the
> > mantra but don't want to go back to it.
> >
> > You say, "If we're thinking about one thing and need
> > to be thinking about another...some will is involved
> > in shifting the attention back."
> >
> > But you left out a step: first we have to become aware
> > that we're not thinking about what we "should" be
> > thinking about. For that to happen, the previous
> > train of thought has to come to an end for long enough
> > for that recognition to arise. You can't have two
> > different thoughts at the same time.
>
> Judy, about this statement that one
> cannot have two different thoughts
> simultaneously: Have you never had
> thoughts and mantra together? Or
> thoughts and sutras? Or, outside of
> meditation, thoughts of one thing
> while looking at another?
>
> It's an accepted part of TM practice
> that we have multiple thoughts all the time.
> There's an instruction for that situation
> in the checking notes. But TM teaching
> aside, it's a common experience, is it not?
>
snip,
When two people have the same thought, whose thought is it?
are thoughts sent to us or do we make them up as we go?
I am curious as when I was about ten, I noticed a small (meaningless) sound
going around in my head as I would be going to sleep which had the same affect
as the one I received at initiation twenty odd years later.
It was unsolicited which would mean that it was sent (I think).
I would think that if you think in pictures and situations as well as words,
you must be covering a lot of thoughts at once.
Maybe meditating off and on for sixty odd years would account for the odd
outlook? N.
