--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > G*M*AB. Breathing and heartbeat are controlled by the > > > autonomic nervous system, not the thinking mind. > > > > Many routine activities are also controlled automatically, > > without the involvement of the thinking mind. Take walking > > as an example: > > But walking is a voluntary activity even so. Breathing > and heartbeat are involuntary. That's the distinction > I was trying to get at. (It may be possible to bring > breathing and heartbeat under voluntary control, but > that's a different issue.) > > I was addressing your assertion that TM itself involves > "dividing the mind" because otherwise one would stop > breathing and the heart would stop beating. That's a > bad example; it involves the inherent divisions of the > nervous system, not the mind. > > > You move your legs, but you are not concerned of how > > exactly you do it, unless you start learning how to walk. > > In fact, if you try to be aware how you walk. you may > > actually stumble. In a similar way many activities are > > automatized. Even Japa itself, if done regularly is > > automatized. > > Would you say one could do TM, as it's supposed to be > done, while walking?
I didn't say its TM, it's Japa. > I don't think so. Kids' TM isn't > the same as regular TM in that sense. I'd be very > surprised if kids could experience transcendental- > consciousness-by-itself while walking. Well that would be a self-contradiction. Not by-itself, but along-with activity is of course possible. And its possible to experience subtle levels while engaged in another activity. Then if activity requires more of your attention, you go out of it. You may go in and out to varying degrees, no problem. > They may > experience transcending in the sense of "finer" > thoughts/mantra, but there's no possibility, I would > guess, of experiencing TC-by-itself. > > > > Question is whether TM is japa. I don't think you can > > > lump it in with most japa practices. > > > > It is a question of the definition. There are many forms > > of Japa, even writing down a mantra on paper is a form of > > japa, and as it involves repeating a mantra, it would be > > automatically Japa. > > Yes, it's a definitional issue for sure. The question is > whether one can properly characterize what one "does" > with the mantra in TM as "repeating" it. In one sense > yes, in another no, in that, as I went on to suggest, > repeating it isn't the "point"; the point is to "lose" it. It could be just the same. But you don't make it a point to lose it, that takes care of itself. What are you trying to drive at? > That may seem like splitting hairs, but I think the > distinction is crucial. > > > > > 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. > > > > Japa is a broad term. You may have a narrower idea of > > the term because of things you read about it, but > > that's not necessary conclusive. > > Not necessarily, but I'm not necessarily wrong either! > > > > > 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? > > > > Okay. I didn't mean to insult you, the *ridiculous* was > > about this particular argument, not about you. > > OK. But I wasn't disputing that many people do japa with > much success. I was just saying that their experience > doesn't invalidate the TM recommendation. Which would be to not do it? But if you want to do it? There is no basis for this recommendation. > > I think we are on same footing wrt experience, as japa > > during activity is nothing new and recommended by many > > saints and religious scriptures. > > Not sure what you mean by "same footing wrt experience." > My question is whether what many saints and scriptures > recommend is relevant to TM. And why would this relevance be important? > > > Japa is about holding on to the mantra, no? > > > > No. I think you apply a rather narrow definition to japa > > here. > > Let's see if we can refine this, then, because I think > it's where the rubber meets the road on this issue. > > Would you say that japa is about repeating the mantra as > much as possible? The more repetitions, the better? > > Many beginning TMers, particularly during the three days > of checking, complain that thoughts keep getting in the > way of the mantra. TM teachers have to reinforce over > and over that this isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's what's > supposed to happen; it's stress being released, a sign > that one is in fact meditating correctly. > > > The way I do it, during activity is just as easy and > > leisurely, if not more so, as in TM. You do it, if you > > think of it, during routine activities, just off and on. > > Not all japa is ajapa japa. That would be if it was an > > automatic continuous flow. > > > > > TM is about > > > *losing* the mantra (either via transcending or stress > > > release). > > > > But losing the mantra is not intentional, it happens > > automatically. Same in any form of Japa. > > Do you experience TC-by-itself when doing japa? > > > TM is also about > > coming back to the mantra, once you notice that it's gone. > > With Japa in activity it is even more leisurely, because > > you do it only when it is convenient, and you come to think > > of it. What is different is just the *theory*. The practice > > is very much the same. > > But that's a distinct difference in practice. In TM, if > you come back to the mantra only when it's "convenient"-- > e.g., you're enjoying the train of thought you were having > when you realized you were "off" the mantra, and you'd > rather go back to the train of thought than go back to the > mantra--that's a no-no. In that case, if you decide to > favor going back to the thought rather than the mantra, > you've essentially stopped practicing TM. In japa its a 24/7 thing, not just 2x20, so the cycles will be initially different. You also have activity as an extra element. So, you do your job, and if you have to focus on it, and lose the mantra, its because your attention is required. > > Look, I suppose neither you, nor Lawson (don't know about > > Willy) have really practised Japa outside of meditation. > > You just formed an idea about it, but unless you practise, > > you don't really know what is going on. > > True. That's why I'm asking. > > > Part of your argument seems to be that japa, as I propose > > it is incompatible with TM, since, as you think, the mantra > > in meditation has become so refined, that, as you believe, > > you can't use it in another condition, because it would be > > too gross. This I infer from what you said earlier on. > > No, that's not it. You use the mantra in whatever > "condition" it happens to be in when you entertain it. You > don't try to make it fainter or louder, it can change in > many ways, etc., etc. No such thing as "too gross" unless > you're deliberately trying to make it grosser than it > "wants" to be. > > What I said was that my experience after I'd seen my mantra > in print was that the spelled-out mantra kept coming up in > my mind's eye and sort of "fighting" with the very abstract > sense of the mantra that has become my normal experience of > TM. I don't try to push away the spelled-out version; I > just have to tolerate it until it goes away. I think that you have formed a concept about 'the refined mantra' There is no refined mantra, there is only a refined mind IMHO. I should ask you, when you saw your mantra in print, was it in Sanskrit devanagari or in english transliteration? What would your reaction have been if it was in Devanagari? Would you have reacted the same way? Do you see what I mean? It is only in your mind. There is a concept in your mind, that the mantra is already so-and-so refined, to the x-degree. Now, when you see the mantra in print, its neither gross nor fine, its just in print. But for some reason you think, its less refined than your x-degree, so you get into a conflict of your refined mantra with what you think the gross mantra is. The gross mantra fights with the fine mantra - what a comedy. You experience this involuntary, but because of concepts you formed, which have been taught to you. > I suppose I should consider that experience as a form of > stress release. But there's no good reason for me to expose > myself to that particular trigger if I don't have to, any > more than there would be to engage in vigorous exercise or > eat a full meal or pick a big fight with my partner right > before meditating when the argument could have waited until > afterward, or deliberately choose to meditate in the subway > at rush hour when I had plenty of time to do so once I got > home. You don't have to, but nevertheless it is a sign for something you might want to consider. AFAIK the checking points advise you to pick up the mantra at the level of your normal thought at that point, and IIRC in a recognizable way. That is to say, once you start meditation, it should not be twisted. You may ask your checker. Later, when you practise, and the mantra changes, you allow it. So, you shouldn't actually have a problem with a written form of the mantra. Many Hindus have written forms of mantras on their altars. Each yantra has many mantras written on them in devanagari, but also other local scripts. These are religiously seen as to be holy and giving a positive influence. Trying to explain to a stranger the kind of problem you had, and explaining the TM concepts going along with it, he would definitely think this is a very obscure and cultic thinking. > > There are to possible answers to this (I am not trying to > > convince you here). > > > > First I note that this is a different argument than that > > given by Maharishi. > > But I wasn't making the argument you understood me to > be making. See my clarification above. Do you still say > that's different from what MMY said? If so, how? The official argument was that japa splits the mind. Your argument is, that it blurs the distinction between meditation and activity. They are different arguments. > > Second, one could do japa with a different mantra/word. > > This is actually how I started out. > > Did you ever find that different mantra/word coming up > when you then did TM? At the time I did TM, and also tryed out japa, I didn't get mixed up. It was easy to start with the correct mantra and easy enough to come back to it. I would sometimes get mixed up in the sequence of siddhis. > Or were you no longer doing TM at > that point? I had tryed it out at a time, but not regularely. > And did you find yourself using the japa > mantra in activity in the same way you used (or had used) > the TM mantra in meditation? There is a natural difference. But the mantra is also refined in activity. But most inportantly is the activities of other nervecenters especially the sahasrada. If the sahasrada was strong I didn't need japa, I just let my awareness be with it. Sometimes japa would aggrevate the sahasrada too much and I would just leave it. Sometimes it would nourish it. It all depends. > > Third, during activity, the mantra may just be as refined > > as during meditation. It may be just a soft impulse that > > you notice like your breath - by itself, without intention. > > > > I am reminding you again about the bliss technique, taught > > by Chopra under the auspices of Maharishi, where such a soft > > form of japa could be done during a passive kind of activity, > > like watching TV. I haven't done it myself, and at the time > > I heard about it, when the techniques came out, I didn't know > > that it involves repeating a mantra, but it does obviously. > > I don't know anything about that technique, but it's *not > TM*, so how is it relevant? Its a form of Japa, and was sanctioned by the movement, actually taught by the movement. So it has the full recommendation of the movement. > > wrt to driving: I think everybody has to judge himself how > > much attention one needs. > > Actually I think we need to reorient the discussion; we've > gotten sidetracked into what is and is not "dividing the > mind," when the more important point regarding TM is the > dying-the-cloth principle--that the "engine" of development > of consciousness with TM is the alternation of full > involvement in meditation (rest) with full involvement in > activity, such that activity "challenges" the silence > accrued from meditation. These are clearly two different arguments. You shift the focus of the discussion as you are losing it on one end. > I do not see how it can possibly be maintained that doing > japa during activity doesn't blur that boundary between > meditation and activity. It may or may not make > meditation more "active," but it surely makes activity > more meditative. And that, in my understanding, would > make the "engine" less effective than it could be > because activity is then not as strong a "challenge" to > the silence from meditation. > > How would you respond to that? You should tell this to purusha and MD. They actually blur this boundary much more than I would ever do, doing only subtle mental activities. How about their engine to enlightenment? > > (Please just forget about the driving business. It was a > good analogy in the earlier part of the discussion, but > it really is no longer germane as the discussion has > developed.) Okay, what about running. Love to run, physically more exhausting than many activities or anything you'd do on purusha, yet a perfect opportunity for japa. It's perfect stabilisation. After running (1-2 hrs) I'll rest for a while, and can do easy, restful japa as well. Two very different experiences - and japa can be applied to both. And mind you, it doesn't have to. Plus, if you ever get CC experiences, which you are supposed to have, then the same line gets blurred. It's just meant to get blurred at one point or the other. > <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. >
