--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote: > > > By its own self-classification, mindfulness is concerned with the mind > and with the experiences of the mind. This is true no matter what the > origin of an experience � whether from the body, senses, mind, > intellect or from an `I'. > > > > By definition, mindfulness can never go beyond itself and therefore > mindfulness can never lead to awakening.
If you look at various instructions for mindfulness meditation, there is some variety, but many I have read resemble TM except for the use of a mantra. One does not explicitly focus on thoughts or breath or try to control the process. I must admit that the second kind of meditation I tried was mindfulness (TM was the third), and I found it difficult, though now it is not difficult at all. I tend to agree with Maharishi that TM is more efficient, at least as far as not making much of an effort and making it easier for persons to disengage from outer experience. It might be that individual variations in people could be responsible for how easy mindfulness meditation seems. Mindfulness is also usually associated with postures that are difficult for novices to maintain, and that might also be a reason why it can produce difficulties. Mindfulness also has a track record in scientific research, seemingly about on par with TM. Mindfulness has a record of leading to enlightenment in Zen, and the stories are rather common so saying mindfulness does not lead to awakening is just as false as saying TM can never lead to awakening. Note that some persons awaken without the benefit of any technique or teacher. Awakening is a potential characteristic of any human life, and no one or no one method has ownership of it. Meditation seems to be the principal method commonly employed by which the probability of awakening can be increased. The purpose of mindfulness is the same as TM, to experience what is behind what we call the mind. Mindfulness is not necessarily any more concentrative than TM unless done improperly; by mis-characterising it you are doing it a disservice. In 1955 Maharishi referred to TM as mind control. TM and mindfulness properly practiced can both lead to the letting go that results in experiencing inner silence. The mind is 'controlled' by letting go. > > Its role is recollection and it functions to counter our inveterate > forgetfulness that we (along with the world) are contingent and > temporary. > > > ........................................................................\ > .................. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" whynotnow7@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mindfulness, as I mentioned in an earlier cafe rap, involves the > use of > > > > a bit of the forbidden E-word, effort. If you find yourself stuck > in an > > > > unattractive mindset or a bringdown set of afflictive emotions, > you've > > > > IMO often got to expend a little effort to get yourself back on > track. > > > > > > > > Some don't think much of the idea of mindfulness. To them, pretty > much > > > > all raised on the TM dogma, the whole idea is kinda Off The > Program, > > > > because they think (never actually having tried it, of course) > that > > > > mindfulness is not "natural." The idea presented to all of us as > > > > students of Maharishi was that lowering oneself to monitoring > one's > > > > thoughts, emotions and actions should never be necessary. > According to > > > > the theory, you just get yourself enlightened, and then all of > your > > > > thoughts, emmotions and actions are *automatically* in tune with > the > > > > laws of nature. They are all at that point -- by definition -- > right > > > > thought, right emotion, and right action; there is no need to > > > > self-monitor, because everything is automatically perfect. Many > folks > > > > believe in this theory so strongly that they choose to live > according to > > > > this "never self-monitor" creed long before they realize > enlightenment. > > > > :-) > > > > > > ** I remember during my TM days the "thou shall expend no effort" > instruction too, and the story told about "lowering oneself to > monitoring one's thoughts, emotions and actions should never be > necessary". > > > > > > The TM show is actually a different kind of instruction than > mindfulness, more in keeping with the way TM works, and MMY taught. With > his way, everything is about pulling back on the arrow, and capturing > the fort to own the territory, and highest first. > > > > > > Mindfulness, as fair as I can tell, leads to realization through a > dawning that the forest is larger than the trees, that each external > experience we have is every bit as much a mantra, a vehicle for > transcendence, as the internal experience of meditation. Perhaps a more > stable way to grow spiritually because the focus is on internal > realization of external phenomena; there is always a checking mechanism > in place, the external world. > > > > > > > Yep, sitting in a mindfulness as effortless transcendence in practice > is every bit as effortless as noticing you're off the mantra and > mentally re-introducing it. Transcendence and mindfulness are a perfect > blend in practice. Better than each just by itself. Is a type of > Patanjali refreshed. It's proly the 21st Century's product of > secularizing meditation. Spirituality separating from old cultural > religious form or even leaving religiosity behind. It's a modern world. > -Buck > > > > > > > On the other hand, the "effortless" path of TM's rest and activity > is more like slowly walking your way over the years to the top of a very > high cliff, with the only option left at the top is learning to fly. > > > > > > Both techniques get to the same place. Just a matter of preference I > guess. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > >
