--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: >
> Yes, it is. You're suggesting I'm all mixed up about > transcending and am not experiencing what I think I'm > experiencing. You certainly experience what you experience, and the value it has for you only you can ascertain. But about the label you put on it we can have different views, right? > But what I was describing isn't what you > thought I was describing, as Lawson saw immediately. I had seen it on second glance, but before I answered. <snip> > Because the term--in English, at least--can refer both to > the end point and the process of getting there. But my whole point is that I doubt this *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.) To me this leads to a very watered down version of transcendence which may be palatable to all. At one point, 'transcendence' is a word used as the defining signature of TM, on the other hand, it is used in a watered down version, as you say, not just for TMers but for anyone, getting in a more relaxed mode. As we know, Maharishi called the transcendence occuring in TM 'hazy' or relative himself, as they are quick dips inside, certainly pleasant and refreshing IME, but I wouldn't call it transcendence anymore. <snip> > At worst, you're talking about *degrees of experience*, not > imagining vs. experiencing. IME it is not degrees of the same experience, but a very different experience. > Lawson isn't "imagining" that > his thinking self is not present during an experience of > transcendental-consciousness-by-itself. Lawson question *my* experience by assumptions of how they had to be. But he simply doesn't know, he just made ignorant conditions IMO > 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. That's not the same either. I know this experience from my TM past, and it is not comparable. These are usually short dips inside. > 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. I don't know if we mean the same thing. 'All thoughts being pulled off your brain' is actually the best description I can come up with. This is the way I experience it. It is in no way comparable to what I experienced when I was still in TM, there your description would fit better, so I suspect it is not the same. OTOH there are strong other indicators, which I had mentioned before, which I did not experience in the usual TM mode. For example, this 'pulling off of thoughts' is accompanied by a strong sensation coming from the forehead chakra, the anja. (and it is of course connected to the Sahasrara, as I had mentioned before). Nobody in TM ever told me about these indicators, but they are invariably the ones going along with it. They are like switches. <snip> > 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"? I think I just did. > 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." Nevertheless there are clear instructions, like coming back to the mantra, etc. This was the very thing I was objecting to as a difference. IME one is not in the TM process, but in a self-defined process of its own. It doesn't need to match the TM description and I don't think it usually does. It is more matching the description Vaj posted here recently coming from Dzogchen. > 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. If it would happen despite of your intention to sit down and meditate it would be even more convincing. But IME at that point, effort vs effortless become meaningless terms. You could just spontaneously concentrate as well. > 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. Right. And it doesn't really support the two-step model. > > 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. Possibly both. > > 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. That's a whole new topic. In my understanding today, this is another simplification - this whole issue about spontaneous vs 'moodmaking',I think there is a considerable overlap. > "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. But only from its 'spontaneaous result' perspective, not as a teaching in its own right. Maharishi just uses these teachings and says they are the automatic result of TM and leaves it at that. But I d not fully agree with Maharishis Gita interpretation. It is very well possible to 'offer' ones action to god, as a kind of fundamental attitude, which translates into ones own being more and more by practise and habit. > 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. Yes, I disagree. I was comparing this '2 steps of progress' model to a more simple model everybody knows, the sleep / waking state model, and see parallels there. I do not believe that 1) you really fully transcend during meditation, and 2) that these rather momenteaous short dips have a very far reaching influence on meditation. IOW I don't believe in a gradual build up effect as it is taught in TM. I ma not saying that there could be no positive effects of TM in activity, there is deep rest and relaxation possible, some insight as well, but I don't see this gradual infiltration of transcendence into activity from these short tips. On a side note: As it is I am simply investigating TM beliefs and conditioning. All of them. I compare them to my present experiences, and catch up with them. So, when I say something about your or Lawsons experience, and definitions, I actually comment about my own past experiences and beliefs. I am in a process of untangling the web of my TM conditioning, and I let you participate. Nobody has to follow me in that, and I understand that some of the things I say may sound offensive, but I want to make clear that it is not meant as putdowns. <snip>
