--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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.
Yes, I know you were. But you were doing so with
reference to what you misunderstood me to be saying
as if that *is* what I'd said; and in this post you
didn't indicate that I had actually been saying
something different.
> 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.
Sure. I have no problem with that. But...
> > 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.
...look, you wrote:
> > > 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!,
"I had the same" sure sounds like it means "I had the same
experience Judy was describing." But that wasn't what I
was describing.
> > 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 mean "business as usual" in terms of picking up the
mantra? How do you know you're on the outward stroke?
<snip>
> > 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.
Well, you may not have meant to, but that's the way it
came out. Anyway, it's all cleared up now, I hope.
> > > 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.
Right.
> In my experience, you don't need the outward stroke, to be
> aware of it.
To be aware of what? By (TM) definition, to be aware
*of* anything *is* the outward stroke.
> > > > 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.
It often sounds as though you're contrasting your non-TM
experience with *the* TM experience rather than *your* TM
experience. Just above you say, "the transcendence
experience" rather than "my transcendence 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.
I don't know whether you can draw any conclusions about
TM from this, though. It isn't impossible that you were
much further advanced in development of consciousness when
you started TM than most people are, and that TM just
pushed you to a level beyond what most others reach, or
at least those in this particular group at this particular
time.
> > 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 ;-)
Well, not really. At least in terms of what I've heard,
MMY and TM teachers repeatedly emphasize that everyone's
experience is different.
> > 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.
Yes, I know, but you have claimed that TMers don't "really
transcend" at all.
> Is it not that the great master himself, MMY said that there
> are 108/112 ways of transcending? (SCI course, reference to
> Vijnana Bhairava)
Did MMY mean "108/112 ways of transcending," or "108/112
experiences of TC-by-itself"? In other words, was he
referring to the process, or the end point?
I took only the SCI mini-course, and I don't remember that
bit. But my understanding is that Vijnana Bhairava has to
do with the process, 112 *means*--ways, practices--to
achieve enlightenment, not 112 different experiences of
TC-by-itself (turiya).
> So what about Lawsons, 'but-silence-is-just-silence'
> argument?
He was referring to TC-by-itself.
> 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.
It sure has sounded like it at times. Again, you've
said you don't believe TMers ever experience "real"
transcendence.
> 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.
And you were never able to confirm it in TMers?
> > 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.
How could you possibly know it was totally independent?
> 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.
Didn't MMY once say the chirp of a bird or even the whiff
of exhaust from a bus could be all it takes to trigger
enlightenment? I think he would have been referring to
permanent enlightenment, but that surely could apply to
temporary experiences as well.
> 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.
"Care" only in terms of how you make your argument, not
"care" in the sense of regret that you didn't stay with
TM longer.
> It's all just the insistence that TM DOES IT. I couldn't
> have cared less.
As far as I'm concerned, it isn't insistence that TM DOES
IT, but the insistence that TM DOESN'T DO IT. I don't
think we're in a position to say one way or the other with
regard to one person's individual experience. Or many
people's experiences, for that matter.
I can't claim your advanced experiences had anything to do
with TM, but by the same token, you can't claim they didn't.
I think all of us draw too many conclusions on the basis
of insufficient evidence.
