Emptybill, I find what you say fascinating. I was taught my mantra with the short vowel pronunciation. My own teacher said that he was taught the mantras by an Indian, so perhaps there was some degree of misunderstanding about the nature of how it should be said. Having said that, the pronunciation I use delivers all the same results, as I already firmly believed it would, since I do not believe in the numinous qualities of mantras. In my case, I am a thoroughgoing secularist and I don't believe in any supernatural qualities; either to the mantras or 'pure consciousness' being equitable, or in some sense a verification of, Brahmen. In my estimation, TM works because of the technique itself. I have changed my mantra (i.e., made one up) on purpose several times and it seems to work every bit as good as the one I was given in my training. M himself has said many times it is purely mechanical and the technique is what brings you to pure consciousness. Having said that, I do know that M also believed that the mantras were special and I fel certain that he believed they were numinous. Still, he placed great emphasis that the technique itself was what made the meditation work so effectively. Of course I am still researching all of this as diligently as I can and I might be completely wrong as to what M thought. But I do know using made-up mantras has worked every bit as well as the one I was given. If nothing else, I think that is suggestive, and it comports well with my own thinking that what makes TM so special is the technique. Cheers Bill
From: emptybill <emptyb...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2011 7:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of bija mantras When I received the mantras from MMY in 1972 at the Fiuggi course, he gave them all with long vowels (Hreem rather than Hrim or Hrem). Since I had already read some of Sir John Woodroofe's books, I listened intensely to make sure I heard them correctly. One of the problems with not knowing how to pronounce basic Sanskrit is that ordinary Westerners often get it wrong, including the spelling. Some of the lists of supposed TM mantras on the net are so absurd that they become a real hoot. ………………………………………………………………………………. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, William Parkinson <ameradian2@...> wrote: > > Not too muchm sadly. I am still learning everything I can about MMY and TM. > The only other interesting thing I found out that most do not know is that > according to Donovan, the singer who was there with the Beatles in India (as > I know you know already), MMY divided up longer mantras to reduce it is basic > easy bija mantras for Western people, who were not inclined to the religion > of Hinduism. This makes sense, since every time I see TM mantras they are > indeed part of larger whole mantras, e.g., Om klim hrim...Sawastri...etc. (as > claimed in the book, Here Comes the Sun: The Spiritual & Musical Journey of > George Harrison, pg. 127.) And also, Frawley claims that the long I in > shakti mantras designates shakti, but the short I vowel sound is supposed to > designate Siva or static consciouness. So that makes me wonder why we all use > the short I vowel sound in MMY versions of the bija mantras (i.e., hrim, > instead of the normative hreem pronunciation, to cite > but one example). Might it be because MMY thought the so-called shakti > mantras were too powerful for Western minds? In any event, Feurstein is a > very respected scholar and I trust his research and acumen. > > From: Bhairitu noozguru@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2011 5:25 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Origin of bija mantras > > >  > On 09/07/2011 05:09 PM, William wrote: > > For what it is worth, the most trusted yoga scholar I know is Dr. Georg > > Feurstein and according to him bija mantras are first found in the > > brahmanas, where they are associated with specific deities (Georg > > Feurstein, "Tantra: Path of Ecstasy", 16.) > > What else have you studied on tantra? >
