As everyone knows, this is counter to TM instruction. The first research on pure consciousness during TM was published more than 25 years ago and quite forcefully explains why this (Sahaj) practice isn't as effective as TM practice.
Researchers asked people to press a button when they had an episode of pure consciousness. What the researchers found was that by the time a meditator pushed the button, they were no longer in an unusual state of consciousness: they had returned towards normal (for TM practice) levels of Alplha coherence and relaxed breathing. In other words, by the time you notice you are "in" pure consciousness during TM, you are actually out of it. Deciding to remain in this quiet state is impossible because the quiet state simply cannot be "noticed" while you are in it, so all you are doing is detracting from the *process* that is TM. Pure consciousness is totally unimportant during TM. It is the process of the inward stroke of meditation (decreasing mental activity) followed by the outer stroke that matters. Some period of inactivity at the transition between inward and outward is totally unimportant because in order to note that you "are" in that state of inactivity requires that the mind be active enough to note something in the first place. Research suggests that this will be true for everyone, no matter how long their pure consciousness during TM lasts: if they note that they are "in" pure consciousness, they are no longer in the pure state. Now, for someone who transcends for an entire meditation period, this model/theory may break down, but how many reading this have 20 minutes of breath suspension during TM practice and how would you know? L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote: > > > Besides the difference in mantra-s, there is a difference in how the two > meditations are done. > > In Sahaj practice, the understanding is that the mantra doesn't "go" > anywhere so we don't actually "lose" the mantra. Because we > were introduced to the mantra at initiation, it is naturally recognized > and recollected when we sit down to meditate. However, if during > meditation our attention has been absorbed in thoughts for a while > without realizing it, then we just return to the mantra by recognizing > it again. If we find our attention aware of thoughts occurring within > the mind, that in itself, does not constitute a reason or a need to > reintroduce the mantra. Just to rest in silent awareness, although there > is no activity or "object reference", is in itself meditation > because awareness is fundamental while the mind is not. > > Or as SSRS has said, although you cannot "know" awareness, > because it is not an object, you don't need to do so because you are > that very awareness itself prior to mind and to the mind's > experiences, whether objective or subjective. > > ��������������������.. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > The Power of Mantra > > > > > Contrary to public misinformation, techniques like Transcendental > Meditation or Sahaj >>Samadhi are not based on repetition. They utilize > a much subtler science. > > > > > > Om, so are Transcendental Meditation and Sahaj Samadhi effectively the > same? The similar practice? Just wondering. Anyone learned both? Anyone > here taught both? -B > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibrations of consciousness." Mantra carries the mind to the silence > that > > > was there before God said, "Let there be light." > > > > > > In Sanskrit, mantra means vehicle for the mind: manas - mind, tra - > > > vehicle. Tra is the root of our English suffix, tron. Electrons > carry > > > electricity. Positrons carry positivity. Mantras carry mind to its > source." > > > > > >
