--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > 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.
Earlier you insisted TM *was* Japa. I appreciate your thoughts about japa; I now know more about it than I did before. But what I've learned has led me to conclude that it really has no relevance to the recommendation that TMers not use their bija mantra in activity, so I'm not going to pursue that part of the discussion and just hit on a couple of other points. <snip> > > > 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. That's just playing with words. Any interior perception is a mind state. > I should ask you, when you saw your mantra in print, > was it in Sanskrit devanagari or in english > transliteration? English. > What would your reaction have been if it was in Devanagari? > Would you have reacted the same way? Nope, I don't read Devanagari. > 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. Printed words don't exist in a vacuum. To the mind, they represent sounds; they're transcriptions of sounds into letters. If I'm sitting there and the word "JUDY" appears in my mind's eye, it evokes the sound of my name distinctly in my mind's ear. Same with any other word. We sometimes forget that written words don't have an existence independent of the spoken sounds they represent, because we seem to be able to read written text without hearing it. Anyway, the same thing happens with my mantra after I've seen it in print. The mind's-eye spelling-out evokes the "gross," distinct sound of my mantra, as it was first "given" to me by my teacher, or as I experienced it early on after I started TM. > But for some reason you think, its less refined than > your x-degree That's my *experience*, that my mantra has become very "refined," or "subtle," or "vague," or "quiet," or "faint," or whatever word you want to use. If I didn't remember what my mantra was, I couldn't reconstruct it by listening to what I experience now. It's no longer even a sound, it's very close to nothing at all. > 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. No, I'm sorry, I don't think that's the case. My normal, everyday thoughts are for the most part not in words; they're just faint impulses. They can *become* words in my mind if I'm considering communicating the thoughts. Long before I ever heard about the mantra becoming "refined," I was aware of the difference between a "gross" thought in the form of words and a "subtle" thought in the form of an impulse. You might also ask yourself whether the "taste of a mango" analogy applies with regard to my experience of "gross" and "subtle" forms of the mantra "fighting" with each other--i.e., you haven't had the experience, so there's no way you can really understand it. > > 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. In the early '80s, I took checker training (never got around to getting certified) and still have all the notes. There's nothing about picking up the mantra "in a recognizable way." You pick it up however it comes to your mind. After 35 years, when I begin to meditate, the mantra comes to my mind at this very faint level. I "recognize" this very faint impulse as my mantra, but not because it's "recognizable" in any other sense than that I know it's my mantra. > That is to say, once you start meditation, it should > not be twisted. You may ask your checker. This is correct, you don't try to change the way the mantra comes, at the beginning of meditation or at any time during meditation. That's what I said above; did you miss it? > Later, when you practise, and the mantra changes, you > allow it. Right. > So, you shouldn't actually have a problem with a written > form of the mantra. It isn't a "problem" per se, in that the instructions for TM tell me how to deal with it: Take it as it comes. But it's not very comfortable, so (as I said) I'm going to avoid what triggers it if I can. > 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. Why on earth should I care what he would think? He's not my teacher, he may not even be a teacher himself. He's presumably not familiar with TM at all. Why should I take him as an authority with regard to the viability of TM concepts and what my own personal experience involves? <snip> > > > 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. But it isn't *TM*. The recommendation you've been disputing is that the bija mantra one uses in plain- vanilla TM should not be used as a japa mantra in activity. <snip> > > 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. Sorry, but that's just not the case, as I explained in my previous post. You shift the > focus of the discussion as you are losing it on one end. And that's a pretty hostile accusation, BTW. Also not true. <snip> > Plus, if you ever get CC experiences, which you are > supposed to have, then the same line gets blurred. Of course. According to MMY, that would be development of consciousness as a result (on the householder's path) of the alternation of rest and activity. The *practice* is to alternate; the *result* is that silence and activity begin to co-exist in one's experience, and then are ultimately found to be the same.
