--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote: > > > > > This is all loose talk.
Sure. I am just paying reference to the TM theory of 'dividing the mind'. > Dividing the mind? Which mind? How? Right. This is only a metaphorical way of talking, dividing the mind, better would be to say 'dividing the attention', even though this is also not quite true, as our attention is very well able to have a wider scope of objects. Think of driving (once again). You have to look in front and observe the traffic in front of you, watch the cars of the other lane, if you are overtaking, if somebody is going to pull out, have a look into the rear mirror, to observe the traffic back, you may have to look at your speed, etc. While the expression 'dividing the mind' is obviously metaphorical, it still has the subtle suggestion as you would somehow damage the mind, in the sense of leading to an unwholesome habit, which is left intentionally vague I think. It is just one of those catch phrases which is meant to carry a point across, albeit in an oversimplified way. > 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. Exactly! > 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). Very good describtion. > > 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. Right. > > **************************************** > > > --- 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. > > >
