--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > There may be good reasons why "dividing the mind" is > > OK with these practices. > > GMAB, it's NOT 'dividing the mind'. For example routine > procedures do not require attention, or very little > attention. If that wasn't so, even breathing during regular > TM, or the heartbeat would be splitting one's mind.
G*M*AB. Breathing and heartbeat are controlled by the autonomic nervous system, not the thinking mind. > This argument may hold true in some cases - in many it > doesn't. Therefore any rule that doing japa during > activities *per se* is bogus. Question is whether TM is japa. I don't think you can lump it in with most japa practices. > > As far as I'm aware, the TMO > > recommendation not to entertain the mantra in activity > > is given with regard to plain-vanilla TM. > > That hasn't been disputed. I am disputing the reasoning > given for this. I know. I'm saying it may not apply to any other TM-related practice. > > Remember, I was responding to your original comment that > > you didn't know why the TMO made that recommendation. > > That was in part a rethoric question, which I already > answered in an earlier post myself: I assume its the same > reason as the time restriction that came in the late 60s > and 70s, when people who had taken a lot of drugs, and > freaked out, that's my opinion, anyway. I'll bet it came up right at the start, when MMY was teaching Indians who would have been very familiar with the idea of japa in activity. > My argument is basically, if you can think any random > thought, not pertaining directly to a job at hand, you > can also do japa. But TM isn't japa except in the broadest definition of the term. > > > > > Yes, I know, but the mechanics is that pure awarenes is > > > > > there along with focus and activity. That shows that they > > > > > can co-exist. And remember what i wrote on a previous post > > > > > today, that MMY taught the puja as a way to maintain PC > > > > > with activity. > > > > > > > > Same with Yogic Flying. But Yogic Flying and doing puja > > > > are two specialized practices that are distinct from > > > > plain-vanilla TM, although based on results previously > > > > obtained from plain-vanilla TM. I don't think they have > > > > much relevance to doing japa in activity. > > > > > > Okay, yogic flying you said, but as specialized they may > > > be, they still prove the concept. > > > > I'm not disputing the concept, just suggesting that it > > may be irrelevant to the question of why you aren't > > supposed to entertain the mantra in activity in the > > context of plain-vanilla TM. > > The explanation given that it divides the mind. If it > doesn't divide the mind the argument is bogus. Don't see how you can possibly say that it doesn't where TM is concerned. > 'Dividing the mind' is (i)regarded as something negative, > while (ii) multitasking may not at all be negative, given > a certain accaptable amount of it. The examples given > showcase this. I never said otherwise. What I'm suggesting is that it may be a negative for development of consciousness a la TM to be entertaining your TM mantra during activity. That's *all* I'm suggesting. It's a pretty narrow suggestion that doesn't apply to all this other stuff you're bringing into it. <snip> > Many people do japa with much success. Don't get ridiculous. > Its the experience of many people, just like in TM, nothing > more and nothing less. Look, we've been having what I thought were pretty cordial coversations, despite our disagreements. If you can't refrain from being insulting, let's quit right now, OK? > > > I know, that when I first joined international staff, > > > there was a routine there that we would interupt work > > > every hour for a five minute meditation break. We would > > > let everything go, and sat down for a short meditation. > > > Years later I knew people who got the same instruction > > > from Maharishi, when they had to do long hours of > > > working through the night. I am aware that this is not > > > the same as japa *during* activity, as activity stops > > > for a short period, but it counters the notion that you > > > go deep within, to fully embrace activity. These 5 > > > minute break meditations, which serves more like would > > > a reminder, a re-alignment, and I thought it was great > > > at the time. > > > > I don't see anything wrong with this. The point is > > that you do TM, or you do activity. The length of time > > you meditate and the frequency with which you meditate > > are irrelevant to the principle I'm talking about. > > No, you said, first FULLY plunge into transcendence, > then FULLY plunge into activity, Right, meaning that's *all* you're doing in each case. And what I said was "fully involve oneself in meditation," not "FULLY plunge into transcendence." > this would be the ONLY way, everything else, according to > you, is incompatible with TM. According to MMY's teaching. I said it makes sense to me, not that it's a Law of the Universe. > Here we got a routine were this is periodically repeated > during a period with relatively short intervals. Thats not > FULLY plunging into transcendence. It is in the sense I meant it, i.e., that you're either doing activity or doing TM, not both at once. > > I mean, it would be absurd to meditate for, say, one > > minute, but five minutes gives you the chance to take > > a quick dip in the transcendent, release a little > > stress, even if you don't go "deep within." It's a > > break from activity. > > Sure, its not the same, but its in the direction of it. There > is even more that can be said. One of Maharishis secretaries > gave instructions to people working on a special project to > think of him, Maharishi, or Guru Dev in case any difficulty > arises, in this sequence. Here I don't see much difference > anymore to prayer in activity or japa. Yikes. OK, I disagree. > > > So plain vanilla TM is fine, but I don't think it's a > > > completely static formula. What I am arguing against is > > > this kind of dogma, that you are not allowed to even > > > think the mantra outside of meditation. > > > > Well, "allowed" isn't exactly the word--how are they going > > to stop you? It's an instruction, which you can follow or > > not as you choose. > > Control is here not the question - you can see on your own > response and that of other TMers, that its really NOT > allowed. You didn't even try. My choice. There are plenty of recommendations/instructions that I choose not to follow because they don't make sense to me. This one does, so I choose to follow it. > > And is an instruction "dogma" if there's a practical reason > > for it in terms of the practice's effectiveness? > > It's as long a dogma as that reason is not really valid. > > > "Dogma" is a weasel word. There's plenty of dogma in the > > TM context, but there are also practical recommendations. > > It's not just a recommendation. It would be in TM thinking > like doing another technique, as you yourself just said. > You can test it when you apply for the domes. > > > I don't think it's fair to call those dogma unless you can > > prove they have nothing to do with effectiveness. > > No, the burden of proof would have to go to the TM. Well, neither side can prove anything. But the TMO does have an explanation of the practical basis for this, whereas it doesn't for a lot of other stuff. > > > I am sure people hear chants, or bhajans in their car. > > > > Not the same thing at all... > > Well listening to mantras is thinking them as well. How > about singing along, would that be alright? You can listen > to it, as long as you don't sing them? Chants and bhajans aren't mantras (bija mantras, at any rate). > > > It's so absurd this whole notion, especially within the > > > context of the tradition where it all comes from. > > > > TM is nontraditional in a number of ways. > > It clearly reflects the tradition of japa, but has been > redefined, with certain restrictions, a different > explanation model, and a different vocabulary. Thats really > all. Japa is about holding on to the mantra, no? TM is about *losing* the mantra (either via transcending or stress release). > > > What do you do, when you are in a perilous situation, do > > > you pray, invoke a mantra, or do you think: I fully plunge > > > into activity, and wait until meditation time? > > > > Me, I'd put all my attention on getting out of the > > perilous situation to safety. > > Well we all would do that. Still one can pray along If you're praying along, you aren't putting all your attention on getting to safety. > > If there were nothing I > > could do, I might say, "Please, God, get me out of this," > > but for me that would be more like superstitious reflex. > > For me that would be a conscious choice. > > > I'm not a believer in on-the-spot divine-intervention- > > on-request. > > Doesn't have to be on-spot-divine-intervention. It could > be a synergetic effect, or simply the way you want your > last thought to be. Well, you aren't about to convert me to a different view of God. Mine is VERY abstract. If I were going to be concerned about my last thought, as I went on to say, I'd be more likely to invoke my mantra. But that would also be more superstition than belief. > > If I were in a plane and a wing fell off, and I knew I was > > about to die, I might or might not remember that it's > > said to be a good idea to be invoking one's mantra as one > > dies. But at that point keeping meditation and activity > > separate wouldn't exactly be a big concern. ;-) > > Well, right, here we go, and why should it be otherwise > now? Um, because if I'm about to die in the next minute, it would be kinda silly to wait for meditation time?
