--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > This is your discussion, bluscOut (or rather, non-discussion, > as you point out), and I don't want to get into it.
Okay, but it's you who started the thread I think. Actually, when I write something, I usually have more than just one person in mind. > But scan- > ning it I realized it reminded me of a scene I saw in my > first sociology of religion class in college. > > The professor was doing a Joseph Campbell-like riff on some > common Bible stories, relating them to similar (in some cases, > identical) stories from other non-Christian cultures. One > student, whose only exposure to the Bible stories in question > had been his time growing up in a fundamentalist church) took > offense, stood up, and accused the professor of "heresy" and > "blasphemy." No shit. The student ranted on for some time > about how there was one and only one way to interpret the > stories in question, and that there was no question that they > 1) originated with the Bible, not in these other, older > cultures, and 2) the stories were 100% literally true. (One > of them was the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale.) > > The professor, a patient man if I've ever seen one, allowed > the student to rant, but then asked how he "knew" this as a > fact, as he had been claiming it was. The student said, without > a hint of irony, "My Sunday School teacher told me it was true." > The professor asked, "And how old were you when you were told > this?" The student answered, "I think I was seven or eight > years old." The professor said, "And you've learned nothing > more about the Bible since then, or *cared to*?" The student > stormed out, and dropped the class. > > He's probably still convinced that he knows The Truth, and > that anyone else's view is not only erroneous, but heresy or > blasphemy. That's just what seems to happen when people become > convinced that the first oversimplified "pat answer" they are > given to "explain" something is the only possible explanation, > or The Best explanation. Great story! But who knows what really became of him, he might have also turne an atheist. I do certainly see the danger how 'pat answers' as you call them, concepts, stick to your mind, and become an almost independend entity. I think these memes have a life of their own. The real tricky thing here is, since for many of us its part of our youth, we tend to get an almost romantic relationship to our early experiences. We are hooked up on them. Once you get overwhelmed by such an initial experience, you are ready to buy anything from the same shop who offered it to you, be it sugar or poison. So one swallows these concepts without much reflection and you attach them to whatever experience/practise you may have had. I think one could also see this clear with the whole scientology tschick. It's hard to get it out of the head. As one teacher of mine said once: the more you learn, the more you have to unlearn. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > I may be in the Sahasrada chakra as well, which, I found > > > > > > gives me an added attention span, actually a higher > > > > > > ability to concentrate. I just mention it, not for anyone > > > > > > to practise, but it is certainly possible. Maybe Vaj knows > > > > > > what I am talking about, I am sure Rory would. > > > > > > > > > > Can't comment on this at all. > > > > > > > > Judy, you ask all kind of questions about japa, and relate > > > > it to your definitions of TM, giving the analogies you > > > > learned. > > > > > > > > Yet, when I give you my experience just as above, there is > > > > nothing you can say. How can I continue with this dialoque? > > > > It is really impossible. > > > > > > Well, it may be impossible for you, but it's not because > > > I wasn't able to comment on the bit of esoterica you came > > > up with above. GMAB! > > > > But as I tell you! Why do you call this deragotory 'bit of esoterica'?It's > > exactly this "not understanding" and also unwillingness to look at this, > > which makes it impossible. If you, and only you define the margins of such > > a discussion, what's the point? > > > > So, again: this may be estoteric to you, but isn't the least bit to me. How > > can you indeed describe the taste of a mango, who has never tasted one? You > > have to eat the mango yourself, otherwise you don't know, and have no > > reference point you can relate to. > > > > > > > > I think that you extend certain analogies too much, > > > > which are nothing else than teaching devices. Analogies > > > > like the dye/dry of the cloth, or the bubble diagram are > > > > just illustrations. They have a point but their > > > > implication is in no way absolute. Just like the bubble > > > > diagram, it illustrates a certain aspect, but you are > > > > confining the whole thing to this one aspect. > > > > > > I'm really not. > > > > Yes, you are. Ypu make this the defining feature of the whole process of > > spiritual development, whereas it is just an aspect. > > > > > The dying-the-cloth analogy is just a > > > starting point. > > > > That's what I was saying. The starting point you have to leave ultimately. > > > > > I think we get way off track talking > > > about japa, which is why I was trying to pin down the > > > distinction between japa and TM, and then get back to > > > TM specifically via the dying-the-cloth analogy. > > > > I don't understand "off track". Where do you plan to go? I made a clear > > point about japa. I said, I don't understand why oh why in the TM world it > > is 'verboten'. You offered me the standard division-of-mind explanation, > > and when it was debunked by me and others, you switched to another, as you > > found it not useful anymore. > > > > > > > > > If you ask me about my experience about japa and/or > > > > transcendence with activity, I have to refer you to > > > > experiences as I just described them above. > > > > > > You describe the results of your japa practice, not > > > your experience of the practice as a practice. > > > > That's the problem if you don't know what you are talking about. Mind you, > > you cannot know, so it's unfair I confront you with that, yet it's > > unavoidable if we don't just want to do some intelectual quibble. > > > > The sahasrada 'awoke' some years ago, when I was still living in a > > thoroughl TM context. It has nothing per se to do with japa or not japa. > > Yet it changed all my experiences and turned everything I knew upside down. > > And it blurred especially the distinction between inside and outside. > > > > Whereas plain/vanilla TM gives you an impression of a gradual process of > > refinement, until a moment of what I would call transcendence at the time, > > this process was more and more substituted by a switch. There was no fading > > in and out. I can relate to these concepts, theoretically, I can remember > > them as they where for me in the beginning, but they lost all practical > > value for me. To talk in their terms is like trying to get into a mental > > corset for me. > > > > > > To me Japa is watering the root, which is the root of the > > > > aswatha tree, with its roots above, at the sahasrada, and > > > > the stem leading to the heart, and the branches leading > > > > from there to all other centers of the body. This is, as > > > > I say, my spontaneous experience. > > > > > > Nice analogies. ;-) > > > > > > > As Maharishi says, bliss is most important, bliss rejuvenates > > > > the nervous system. Well, that's what it is, 24 hrs bliss > > > > (or in that direction). The model of the refinement of the > > > > mantra is something given in the beginning. > > > > > > Say more about this. I'm not sure how it connects with > > > what we've been talking about. > > > > See above. The mantra doesn't get refined. These are not states of mantra > > but of the mind. > > > > > > The antogonism you construct between meditation and activity > > > > > > "Antagonism" is a strange word to use; and *I* didn't > > > "construct" the difference between meditation (TM) > > > and activity. > > > > No the difference, but you seem to make it a rule, that there shouldn't be > > an element of spiritual refinement during activity. But such a refinement > > is possible, even though very different from the refinement in p/v TM. It > > is not only possible but the actual goal of any meditation. In the end > > meditation is everything, it's not just in a box, when you close your eyes. > > > > > > is undermined by the TM techniques which follow p/v TM > > > > itself. > > > > > > I don't see that it does undermine it. > > > > Yes, it does undermine your argument, that it should be either "full" TM or > > "full" activity. Your argument was, that doing japa would not be full > > activity anymore. You see, you can change the balance on two sides, not > > just on one side. > > > > Just to give you an example, when I am running, doing workout, it's a > > perfect opportunity to do japa. Yet I am very much active. I will sweat and > > be exhausted afterwards. I may do so for two hours. You can't say I am > > blurring the devision between meditation and activity at that time. I am > > very active, likewise if I do any physical activity it has of course a > > stabilizing effect. Now think of the purushas and MDs, what about them? The > > do only little work and many hours of meditation/program. You should > > complain to them! > > > > > > The advanced techniques are defined as slowing down the > > > > transcendence process, so that it happens more consciously, > > > > the siddhis are supppsed to actually introduce activity in > > > > transcendence. So, the whole division between ONLY > > > > transcendence and ONLY activity is already blurred. > > > > > > I don't think that's correct, because these practices > > > aren't *done* during activity. > > > > As I already told you, if you base your strategy on two steps of progress, > > both steps matter. If you can blur activity in your opinion, you can blur > > meditation as well. I just gave you another example of advanced meditators > > (purusha/MD) to show that this doesn't seem to matter. > > > > > > The problem is that all these concepts are like the boat > > > > that you carry along, after reaching the other shore. That > > > > is to say, there is a time, the concepts should be dropped, > > > > they have fulfilled their purpose. > > > > > > Yes, yes, I know, but we can't talk about these things > > > without using concepts. > > > > You are right. But without experience we cannot talk either. The concepts > > may be useful, but in this case they seem to be ends in themself. > > > > > If you don't want to continue, that's OK. I'm sorry we > > > couldn't get into it any further, but I appreciate the > > > conversation. > > > > Okay, and so do I. But if you insist on bringing the conversation back to > > TM, I cannot relate to concepts anymore that I feel I have outgrown. I feel > > I cannot make myself understood. > > >
