--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When I close my eyes before starting to meditate, I
> > > > immediately begin to transcend, in the sense that thoughts
> > > > become more subtle ("Do you feel some quietness, some
> > > > silence?"). And then I pick up my mantra at the level my
> > > > thoughts have reached at the end of the 30 seconds or so
> > > > (or less if the mantra comes sooner).
> > >
> > > This is not to devalue your experience in any way,
Yes, it is. You're suggesting I'm all mixed up about
transcending and am not experiencing what I think I'm
experiencing. But what I was describing isn't what you
thought I was describing, as Lawson saw immediately.
> > > to compare notes. But if I transcend, or what I might
> > > call that, I *can not* think the mantra anymore, it is
> > > impossible. Virtually all thought are pulled out from
> > > my brain.
<snip>
> >
> > Do the words "in the sense that..." mean nothing to you?
>
> I saw that, but then why use the word transcendence at all?
Because the term--in English, at least--can refer both to
the end point and the process of getting there. Which one
is meant depends on the context. I wrote "in the sense
that..." to ensure (I thought) that it would be clear
which I meant: the process, not the end point.
As I understand it--this is from the checker training
course--this is what the phrase "some quietness, some
silence" refers to in the checking procedure. When the eyes
close, thoughts automatically tend to become quieter. (This
is the case for everyone, not just meditators; it's
reflected in increased alpha activity on EEG. Everybody
"transcends" in that sense.)
> > And I question your "I *can not* think the mantra"
> > phrasing, because, in full-blown TC, just who would be
> > thinking anyway and how would "they" know?
>
> Thats exactly the difference between imagining how things
> are and actually experiencing them, of trying to fit
> reality into prepared definitions.
> The point is, one can know, if its me or knowing is there.
> I just said I was comparing notes, and that what I *might*
> call that - there is not even a possibility of starting
> meditation.
At worst, you're talking about *degrees of experience*, not
imagining vs. experiencing. Lawson isn't "imagining" that
his thinking self is not present during an experience of
transcendental-consciousness-by-itself. That's his
experience (right, Lawson?), and also my experience. Of
course there's no possibility of picking up the mantra as
long as one is in that state.
I can relate to your "Virtually all thought are pulled out
from my brain," although that isn't the way I'd describe
TC-by-itself; I'd say the thinking mind has been left
behind, or that the thinking process has ceased to operate.
I suspect we mean the same thing, though.
This is my last post for the week, so I'm going to pull in
a couple of things from your other posts that I wanted to
comment on. I hope I haven't taken anything out of context.
First, when you claim TMers don't experience "real
transcendence," can you explain the difference between
what we experience and what you consider "real
transcendence"?
Second, you wrote:
> I see techniques more on a scale between effortlessness
> and effort, where no technique is completely effortless
> (otherwise it wouldn't be a technique at all, nothing to
> do, not even picking up a mantra, or watching your mind)
MMY once said, I'm told, "TM isn't a technique. We call
it a technique because it works."
In my experience now--not when I first learned; this has
become my experience gradually over the years--the mantra
picks itself up, as it were. The realization "I'm not
thinking the mantra" and the reappearance of the mantra
are indistinguishable. It isn't something I do, it just
happens.
In another post you wrote:
> In fact it is Yogastah kuru karmani, established in Yoga
> act, but what is meant with established in yoga is not
> defined in the Gita as meditation.
I don't believe anybody said it was. In the TM context
it would refer to the result of meditation--i.e., union--
not the process. MMY says in his Gita commentary that it
refers to cosmic consciousness. I'm not sure Lawson is
correct to think it's equivalent to MMY's "Meditate and
act," although it's in the same general ballpark.
> For example the yoga in yogastah could refere to karma
> yoga,
It could refer to the result of any practice that leads
to union (or to those lucky few who become enlightened
without any practice). But "yogastah," as far as I can
tell, doesn't refer to the practice or process but to
the outcome of the practice or process.
> which is defined as desinterested action, and offering
> the fruit of all action to god. Ironically this is not
> even mentioned in TM philosophy, it would be labelled as
> mood making.
It would be labeled moodmaking if the disinterest and the
offering weren't spontaneous.
"Yogastah kuru karmani" is verse 2:48, BTW, closely
following 2:45, "Be without the three gunas..."
And by the way, MMY does discuss karma yoga in both
SBAL and his Gita commentary. I'll try to look up
what he says about it when I have the chance.
You wrote:
> I think what the model of the two steps, rest and activity
> makes so luring, is the simple natural pattern of, well
> rest and activity. You feel rested after meditation, and
> therefore you feel better, more happy, but it is simply the
> effect of being rested. It doesn't bring you enlightenment.
> You don't get more enlightened after having rested well.
I have to say that sounds disingenuous. If you want to
claim that TM does nothing more for one than taking a nap,
just come out and say that. But don't pretend that's what
TMers mean or MMY meant by "rest." You know the whole
drill about "deep rest" that dissolves stresses (samskaras)
that aren't released by ordinary rest. It's fine to disagree
with that, but be straightforward about it, please.
And finally, you said to Lawson:
> But it is cute, how you interpret everything to seemingly
> support the TM model, even though it is clear that there
> is no reference here at all.
You seem to be becoming more and more disrespectful lately.
I'm sorry to see that. I had thought you were one of the
very few TM critics around here who had enough self-
confidence not to need to engage in that kind of behavior
when having discussions with TMers. Hopefully you're just
having a bad day or two. Let's try to keep our disagreements
from becoming hostile. It's been such a pleasure up to now,
for me anyway, that we've been able to do that.
This is 50 posts for me. See you all Friday or Saturday.
