--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I am not speaking of noisiness. In TM it was embedded
> > in a cycle. and it was much shorter. I also did not
> > call it PC per se, I was rather responding to Judy
> > calling her experience transcending, and then going
> > on to pick up her mantra. I had the same, just sit
> > down and whoop!, but as I said, there is no way to
> > pick up the mantra in that state, or even continue a
> > cycle of meditation.
>
> I'm mystified as to why you're still getting this
> wrong. Both Lawson and I have corrected you on it.
>
> I *never* said what you describe. Here's what I said:
>
> "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?')."
Sorry Judy, I am well aware of that. I am maybe not explaining well, but I was
just trying to explain my response to Lawson.
There is some confusion possible: I am not describing my own experience as PC
*per se* - as he kept on contrasting my own descriptions with well known TM
definitions. I only *responded* to your mention of transcendence, that was my
point.
It is true that I misread it when I first had glanced over your post, but even
while responding, I noticed your conditioning it, yet wondered why you started
out like this anyway, and went on to contrast my onw experience to TM
transcendence as usually defined and described here. I can only compare what I
have experienced myself and compare this to the descriptions I have heard of
others or the standard definitions.
> For some reason you keep missing the "in the sense
> that" part and mistakenly assume I meant I experienced
> TC-by-itself the moment I closed my eyes.
>
> No "sit down and whoop!" about it.
I hope that you noticed that the whoop! part was referring to my own experience.
> TC-by-itself occurs
> for me only *after* picking up the mantra. *Of course*
> one can't pick up the mantra in TC-by-itself.
Because TC-by-itself is limited. But even on the outward stroke, if you were in
deep Samadhi, you couldn't just go on business as usual. IMO.
> You and I even had a long discussion of the two senses
> in which "transcend" is used in TM: to refer to the
> process of transcending (increasingly subtle thoughts/
> mantra), or to the end point of the process (TC-by-
> itself, no thoughts/no mantra), depending on the
> context. To make it clear that I meant the first and
> not the second, I added "in the sense that thoughts
> become more subtle."
>
> I had thought by this time you understood, but clearly
> that's not the case. I don't know what else I can say
> to help you get it straight.
>
> But please do not claim again that I said I experience
> TC-by-itself when I close my eyes and then pick up the
> mantra while I'm in that state. I did not and would not
> say that. The first would be false, the second
> impossible.
I didn't actually say that.
> <snip>
> > Basically my position is that of an observer. I
> > could stand up,and walk around, but I would have to
> > force myself. On other occasions it just struck me
> > out of the blue, while walking around in a city, in
> > busy bazar-like lanes.
>
> But this is some form of *witnessing*, PC in activity,
> not TC-by-itself in meditation. Different phenomena.
That it is quite different I said from the very beginning. As long as activity
is there, even very subtle, there will be the witness, also very subtle. If
there is no awareness during the experience of anything, you'll have to refer
to the 'outward stroke' of meditation, to know about it. In my experience, you
don't need the outward stroke, to be aware of it.
> > > How is it that you remember less silence now?
> >
> > It seems to me now, that the transcendence experience
> > in TM was more partial, usually didn't last that long.
>
> You do realize that *your* experience of transcendence
> in TM does not define that of everyone else, right?
And you realize that I was of course referring to my own experiences of
transcendence during TM times as I have often said? Of course I cannot know
what other's experience.
That was something that startled my right from the beginning when the Sahasrara
opened: Did everybody have this already? What did I do before, what were all
the experiences about I had had up until then? Maybe everybody has it, and I
just missed it all the time?
Then I started questioning my environment, and I realized, that with he
exception of the one who told me about it before, nobody really knew it. All
the big transcenders on the big group of very experienced and advanced people
had no idea about it (the Sahasrara) That just as a side note.
> Some TMers describe *very* clear experiences that can
> last for some time (e.g., Tom, in a post just the other
> day).
Yes, I noticed. But Tom didn't get into details, it may not be the usual
phenomenon. But then maybe there is no *usual* phenomenon. But then again that
would contradict TM dogma/theory ;-)
> On the face of it, it isn't at all impossible that you
> simply didn't reach that depth and clarity and length
> of time of transcending when you were practicing TM.
Of course. But again, the type of experience I am contrasting with is not just
different in length and depth, but in quality, so much that I don't see any
connection.
Is it not that the great master himself, MMY said that there are 108/112 ways
of transcending? (SCI course, reference to Vijnana Bhairava) So what about
Lawsons, 'but-silence-is-just-silence' argument? Already, at the course,
Maharishi took some pains in explaining how 112 ways to transcend could be
different. Mira Alfassa says you can experience nirvana in every chakra. This
is my experience as well.
> But that doesn't mean, as you keep claiming, that TM
> *cannot* lead to such experience.
I didn't claim TM *cannot* do anything. How could I know? I can only contrast
my experience at the time, with what I have heard from others at the time, with
the standard descriptions, (which are missing important details IMO, unlike the
original scriptures, like the Shiva Sutras). I was a TM teacher after all, so I
would know, how I would *confirm* transcendental consciousness to others.
> Maybe if you'd stuck
> with it for longer, you would have had clearer/deeper/
> longer transcending, as you have now. I don't think
> you can rule out that possibility.
Well, the opening of the Sahasrara occurred while I was still in TM, but
outside of formal meditation. And I continued TM/siddhis for another year. My
realization was though, that the process that was going on in me, was totally
independend from any method. For example, before the opening, TM and Siddhis,
Flying, would be a big difference. This opening though could be triggered by
anything, it was in no way confined to formal meditation; even reading the
instruction manual of a washing machine could get me into transcendence. The
line between activity and meditation was blurred totally.
So why in all the 7 worlds should I have cared, if I just would have stuck with
it longer, my transcendences would have been deeper? What a strange suggestion.
It's all just the insistence that TM DOES IT. I couldn't have cared less.
