This is all loose talk.
Dividing the mind? Which mind? How?
Who/what would that be doing the dividing? Are they/that/it
somehow different than the mind? How many "minds" do you suppose we
have?
Attention focuses upon it object. Whether course, subtle or causative,
the object is the point of relationship between the observer and
observed in the flow of attention. That object can be sensorial (a glass
of water) or mental (a thought or emotion). If there is no object to
observe during the flow of attention then attention suspends itself and
perception reverts to latency. "Absence" of mental activity can
then becomes the "object" of attention. If all forms of
attention are suspended then we go into deep sleep.
The point of using a mantra (without a meaning) is to give attention
just enough of a perceptual object to be alert yet indefinite enough in
quality to function and maintain an undirected activity. This
undirected, non-discriminatory (i.e. non-intellective) and purely
perceptual process is what allows attention to experience the mantra in
a less concrete manner. The mantra is a mere sound-form (a cognitive
reference) of vibratory value (combined musical value and specific human
verbal sound).
Japa is a process to maintain continuity of the surface level of mental
perception with the sound-form of a mantra. Japa can also arouse
attention to the "referent" of the mantra just like formal
meditation.
****************************************
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since we are having this discussion here about splitting
> > > the mind, and the topic of Gurdjieff came up, as an example
> > > of practises *not* to do in TM theory/dogma, I think it's
> > > worth having a second look on it, what it actually means
> > > from a proponent of Gurdjeffs teaching. It is easy to
> > > misinterpret a teaching on the basis of half-knowledge
> > > and hear say.
> >
> > Just for the record, the person (moi) who mentioned to
> > blusc0ut what a TM teacher had said about Gurdjieffians
> > as an example of what TMers should not do was not
> > endorsing what the teacher said about them and explicitly
> > expressed doubt about its accuracy. The teacher's
> > Gurdjieff example had nothing to do with the point I was
> > making in any case. My point was not about the validity
> > of the TM teaching we were discussing, much less did it
> > suggest that the Gurdjieff example validated that teaching.
> >
> > I'm hoping blusc0ut now understands this, as he didn't
> > at first.
> >
> Judy, this was not addressed to you in particular. The topic came up,
and it interests me. I see it in the context of my ongoing investigation
of my own past conditioning, of our conditioning I might say, and as
such I share it. I believe that terms like 'splitting the mind' are
communicated and defined by such stories. If you thought they where
accurate or not, it may have been such incidents who contributed to the
whole set-up of the TM philosophy and structure. So don't bother, you
may have brought it up, but its really not about you. I think its one of
those stories that may have defined TM as it came down to us.
Historically Maharishi went to colet house london, where RC Roles, a
disciple of Ouspensky was studying, and came into contact with
Maharishi. MMY wanted to make him the leader of the European movement
and set up headquarters there, but Roles refused.
>
