--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I'm reading this as well as the other post with links
> > toward the question I asked you. I thank you. I prefer to reply
> > later in the week to both if that isn't inconvenient with you
>
> No, that's fine, take your time. I appreciate the notice. I
> won't be able to respond until Friday night or Saturday in
> any case, since (as you go on to note) I'm almost out of
> posts. I'll respond then to your question to me about
> advanced techniques as well.
>
> > on the
> > outside chance that we might actually be able to hold a
> > civil conversation.
>
> That's what I was hoping we could do.
>
> Given your phrasing above, however, I'd just like to
> note that it would be difficult to find any instances
> of exchanges between us in which I've been uncivil to
> you *prior to* your having been uncivil to me.
>
> IOW, you can significantly enhance what you refer to
> as the "outside chance" of mutual civility simply by
> continuing to be civil. Your question to me was civil,
> and as you've seen, I responded with civility (the
> many prior instances of your incivility to me
> notwithstanding).
>
> Contrary to the assertions of some here, I don't "hold
> a grudge" when what initially inspired that grudge is
> not perpetuated.
>
> (Mutual civility, however, does not necessarily mean
> *agreement*. It's entirely possible to disagree without
> being uncivil, as long as both parties are sincere and
> maintain high standards of honesty and accuracy.)
>
> BTW, I don't consider the post from Vaj to Willytex that
> I appended to the one from Vaj concerning moi to be part
> of our discussion. It was just a way of saving posts.
>
> While I have you on the screen, one more bit of grist
> for this mill, a description of TM by Vaj in a different
> thread and context (#133674):
>
> "Intent to sit, intent to close eyes (and remove them from
> their open state), intention to begin to use mantra as a
> tool to transcend, failing to maintain transcendence and
> then having the subtle (or even unconscious) intent to
> return to mantra to correct failure to maintain transcendent"
>
> Does that last part (that begins "failing...") sound like any
> meditation technique you've ever practiced?
>
> And one more, your recent response to raunchy:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Furthermore, there isn't an *always* do anything in the
> > > checking notes. You don't *always* start with half a
> > > minute of silence, if the mantra comes:
> > > "Did you notice that the mantra came effortlessly? This
> > > is just the right start of the mantra, effortless
> > > thinking. Now close the eyes and take it as it comes."
> >
> > Checking Notes (General Points) section F:
> >
> > "Regularity in meditation is of utmost importance and we
> > always start with half a minute of silence and end with
> > two minutes of silence."
> >
> > Raunchy, in her need to demonize Vaj chases her own
> > tail but succeeds only in biting her own ass. Again.
>
> Would I be correct in guessing that you are/were not a
> TM teacher and were never trained as a checker? Would
> I be correct in guessing that you searched a text file
> of the checking notes for the word "always"?
>
> If so, you might want to read the introduction to the
> General Points. These points are not part of the
> checking algorithm; they're to be used only if the
> checkee raises a question or a problem to which one
> of the points provides an answer ("We talk only on
> what he is talking").
>
> It's not clear why Point F's mention of the half-
> minute of silence is phrased differently from the eight
> other mentions that *are* in the algorithm. Point F is
> anomalous in other ways as well: the second part of it
> is about how long one should meditate, with reference to
> the fact that some meditators have been told to meditate
> longer than 20 minutes. What that has to do with the
> first part of Point F, which is about the importance of
> regularity plus the reminder about the half-minute in the
> beginning and two minutes at the end, isn't clear either.
> (Perhaps they were originally meant to be two different
> points and got lumped together by mistake?)
>
> IOW, if Vaj is hanging his entire argument on this
> single obscure and anomalous Point F that happens to
> use the word "always," it's vanishingly thin soup.
>
> In any case, the point raunchy was making was that
> there's a prominent and obvious *exception* to the
> half-minute instruction right up front in Point 7
> of the main algorithm, which she went on to quote.
> Regardless of the fact that Point F of the General
> Points says "always," "always" does not apply in the
> case where the mantra comes spontaneously during the
> half-minute. In that case, even if it shows up three
> seconds after you close your eyes, you go with it.
> You don't wrench your attention away from it until
> the half minute is up.
>
> Since you were so extremely uncivil in your response to
> raunchy's defense of me against Vaj's ridiculous attacks,
> I'm sorely tempted to be uncivil myself. I'm resisting,
> but I figure I get to say that you are, at best,
> nitpicking, and at worst disingenuous if you're implying
> that Point F somehow invalidates what raunchy said and
> throws the argument to Vaj.
>
> But maybe I should cut you some slack if you're really
> totally unfamiliar with the checking notes. If so, at
> least try to see if you can grasp why your demonization
> of raunchy was uncalled-for.
>
> OK, one more:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 13, 2011, at 1:07 PM, azgrey wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> <snip>
> > >> Apparently Judy missed the part in her instruction which
> > >> says "we always start with half a minute of silence".
> > >>
> > >> No wonder she's so messed up! She starts the mantra from
> > >> the discursive level. I "thought" so. ;-)
> > >
> > > Vaj: Care to elaborate, expand, or explain what you mean
> > > when you refer to the "discursive level"?
> >
> > "Introducing" the mantra, 'as if any other thought', rather
> > than allowing the mantra to spontaneously (sahaja) begin on
> > it's own.
> >
> > One involves discursive thought and a slight amount of effort,
> > the other is spontaneous and emerges from silence: like a
> > bubble from the bottom of the ocean, or froth from waves.
>
> az, are you spotting the contradiction here?
>
> Introducing the mantra as if it were any other thought
> (what Vaj is calling "discursive thought") is what one
> does at the end of the half-minute of silence. The only
> exception is when the mantra "jumps the gun" and emerges
> spontaneously from silence during the half-minute.
>
> But look at what Vaj says in his first post quoted above.
> He claims I'm introducing the mantra at the "discursive
> level" *because* I've purportedly jumped the gun. He's
> switched things around 180 degrees from one post to the
> next, either because he's thoroughly confused, or because
> he's attempting to thoroughly confuse *you*.
>
> Your phrase "Talk about chasing one's tail and succeeding
> only in biting one's ass" is cute as hell, but you applied
> it to the wrong person.
>
> "Discursive thought" is iffy in any case, at least for me.
> Frequently the mantra *does* emerge spontaneously from
> silence during the half-minute; but even if it doesn't and
> I introduce it when the half-minute is up, it's at an
> extremely subtle level, more of a faint impulse than an
> actual sound, no more "discursive" than when it emerges
> spontaneously.
>
> "Just like any other thought" does NOT refer to the "level"
> of the thought, or its shape or loudness or pronunciation
> or speed or "discursiveness" or any other such
> characteristic. It refers to the *effortlessness with which
> thoughts arise*.
>
> <Excursion>
>
> It seems to me that "introducing" the mantra is much
> more a matter of putting my attention on it than
> "thinking" it. In some sense, the mantra is already
> "there" in the mind. During the half-minute of silence,
> the attention is sort of wandering around loose, and
> on some occasions it happens to "land" on the mantra
> before the half-minute is up, at which point I become
> aware of it and begin to meditate.
>
> "Introducing" it is more like, OK, your attention
> didn't land on the mantra while it was wandering.
> That's fine, but now it's time to "aim" at it so you
> can become aware of it and start meditating.
>
> This is obviously my wording and my interpretation
> based on my experience; nobody should try to emulate
> it. The actual instructions do a much better, cleaner
> job of giving the experience of how the mantra should
> start.
>
> <End excursion>
>
> Finally, I haven't gone into one facet of this overall
> discussion, the issue of effortlessness, because I didn't
> want to distract from nailing down the nature of Vaj's
> gaffe. Perhaps we can explore it at some point later on.
Well done Judy, precise understanding of the checking notes. In the process you
also make it abundantly clear that Vaj has no experience with TM whatsoever. He
claims otherwise, but is lying as usual.
His "project" is to denounce TM in any way he can and thus try to sow doubts
amongst the lurkers here whom he hopes read his yearlong anti-TM-campaign.
