--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:33 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > BTW, how do you know what I mean by "mantra" in the first place? > > The assumption I was making was that you were referring to the > practice of TM. > > > Are you sitting in my head, evaluating my thinking process, judging > > how refined or not refined it has become? > > > > I sometimes get the impression that for you, "mantra" is this > > sacred mental phonetic thing that is always well-defined or at > > least hemi-semi-demi-well-defined. > > > > Where do you draw the line between thinking the mantra, thinking > > some "other" thought, or simply being? I often find that the > > distinction between mantra and other thoughts becomes less and less > > obvious. Likewise, as with making a distinction between thinking > > and not thinking, it easily becomes irrelevant. > > > > Again, it seems to me that you have a need to categorize everything > > into nice, neat categories. This may be the source of your > > frustration with TM, you know. > > I really never had much or any frustration with TM. I simply went to > another teacher and learned the full chain of my "TM mantra", her > dhyana-vidhi (visualizations) and how to use her yantra and do the > necessary yagyas. So rather than frustration, I felt fulfillment, as > I reached a point where I did not have any more questions. > > It actually wasn't I who categorized mantra-shastra, it was the sages > who developed mantric science or mantra-vidya. Every fluctuation or > variation of mantra practice has already been examined and their good > points vs. bad points evaluated and passed down, from realizer to > realizer. Now whether or not you think that is important or not is up > to you. Anyone's mileage may vary. >
... Speechless.
