--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Judy, > > I haven't responded to this post which I guess focuses on the points you > believe I am missing. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > But it doesn't explain why he says things like > > > > "Mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for the mantra' > > > > is a natural and important part of TM." > > > > > > This might be his reevaluation. Long term meditators > > > relate differently to this. I don't really ever have to > > > come back to the mantra at a gross level, it is a more > > > gentle process for my attention. > > > > Same here. The realization that I've been thinking random > > thoughts rather than mantra is virtually simultaneous with > > returning to the mantra. IOW, the return to the mantra is > > automatic. It's almost as if--and may actually be; hard to > > tell at that "subtle" level--there is no thought "I'm not > > on the mantra," just a return to it when the train of > > ordinary thoughts comes to an end. > > > > But I think you're missing the point, which is the idea > > of "waiting" for the mantra, of monitoring (another word > > he used) what's happening. Far from being "an important > > part of TM, "Mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for the > > mantra" makes no sense in the context of TM instruction > > or the TM process itself. And it most certainly is not > > part of my experience. You know as well as I do that > > "monitoring" is strongly discouraged because it > > introduces effort. > > I believe you are missing his point but I could be wrong. > In the way I understand it, he is making a distinction > between thinking the mantra and any other thought.
OK, you don't want to acknowledge the problem. Doesn't really surprise me. > You seem to be getting hung up on his terminology. No, it's conceptual, as I noted elsewhere. > The point it valid having read his original post in context. > As I said before, you guys have completely different agendas > here. He is not trying to prove his ability to parrot TM > teaching, You say that several times as if someone had suggested he was. I certainly didn't. He was explaining how he believes TM is practiced and what the instructions are, but he got it wrong. If in casual conversation someone who has claimed to be a physician recommends antibiotics to a person who has a cold, you have good reason to suspect their claim is bogus. They aren't trying to prove or parrot anything, they're just saying what they believe to be the case, that a cold is properly treated with antibiotics. > he is discussing how it it practiced within the framework > of his current understanding. Which is wrong. It may be true of other types of mantra meditation he's familiar with, but it isn't true of TM. > The way you are paraphrasing it out of the context of his > post seems misleading to how I understood what he was > saying. I have taught people who couldn't get it right > about not having to pick up the mantra because it seemed > like an effort. And you told them to "wait for the mantra" and to "monitor" their meditation to make sure that...what?? To keep checking to see if they're thinking thoughts instead of mantra? What *was* he saying, Curtis? You keep saying I'm missing his point, but you never say what you think his point *is*. > And although sometimes it might be possible to start > meditation and be lost in thoughts the whole time, in my > experience of teaching it was more usually due to not > understanding how the mantra is used. Quite possibly. All I'm pointing out is that once you've made sure the person *does* understand how the mantra is used, you don't tell him or her to be more attentive. If a train of thought is so compelling that the realization of not entertaining the mantra doesn't occur, it's fine. If you start trying to *watch* what you're thinking, that introduces effort. > It takes a little back and forth sometime for people to > get the hang of it. So his analysis does not ring false > experientially. Hmm, so now we're talking about beginning meditators. Except your big point was that Vaj's perspective had to do with deep inner experience. Make up your mind, please. And remember he has sanskrit words for > all these experiences so for him the distinctions are > way clear. Oh, good grief, Curtis. You have no idea whether he's even using the Sanskrit terms correctly. He throws them out not to clarify or foster understanding, but to impress people with his vast knowledge, because he knows nobody here is that familiar with arcane Sanskrit terminology. He sure succeeded with you. > > > > He's elaborated on this in a number of different posts > > > > in ways that make it crystal clear he believes TMers > > > > are instructed to "wait for the mantra"--that's at the > > > > beginning of meditation--and to monitor their meditation > > > > throughout, as well as quoting the checking notes way > > > > out of context in an attempt to justify the above. > > > > > > That sounds inaccurate, I agree. > > I had to read the whole post to get his point. The way you > sum it up sounds wrong but in the context of his post I > believe he had it right. Not from a TM parrot perspective, > but from what it is like to teach people and for longer term > practicers. I still believe you are not really hearing what > he is getting at here. It was a valid point in context. So what *is* he getting at? And why would he use point #7 to justify it? <snip> > > "One POV worth considering is that since TM does not generally > > oppose the mantra changing in sound or quality or speed, etc., > > ones mantra could change and they would not remember the > > 'original' sound they were given, but the morphed version. I > > know mine morphed so that I had to be re-told it on checking > > several times." > > Different teachers handled this differently. If he was > checked by his initiator and was wound up about it they > might check the mantra to chill him out. And he might be > referring to the instruction days when it is not uncommon > to check a mantra if people get uptight. Now who's creating pegs? Note that he doesn't say anything about having been uptight. The way he phrases it, it sounds like he didn't realize it had morphed until the checker asked what it was and corrected it. But that doesn't happen in routine checking, only during the three days of checking (and according to raunchy, only once-- that's what I remember too). For that matter, even that didn't happen during checking per se; it was a short private conference with the initiator to make sure everything was going smoothly. > This sounds more like proof that he actually has done > mantra meditaiton like TM rather than proof that he > never did. "Like TM"? He may well have, and a morphing mantra may not be OK in other mantra meditation techniques. But has he done TM? > > This was addressed to Lawson, who had responded to someone > > who was agitated over whether he was pronouncing his mantra > > correctly by suggesting he get checked. > > Remember in his current context mantras are taken more > seriously than in TM. Fine, but that's not the point. It's his anecdote about having his mantra checked and corrected several times during TM checking. > > If Vaj was making it up in that last sentence just to get > > a rise out of folks, I wonder how you rationalize risking > > anxiety about pronunciation among TMers who read FFL who > > may not have absorbed that "morphing" is perfectly OK and > > even expected in TM (and who might get upset during > > checking to find that they weren't going to be asked > > what their mantra was or be "re-told" it). Same question > > with regard to all the other misrepresentations Vaj has > > made of the instructions for TM. I know you and I have > > different ethical standards, but I'd be interested to > > know if that applies here. > > Yeah your ethical standards are so high and mine are so low. > You really can't stop yourself can you Judy? I'm sorry ethical issues make you so uncomfortable, Curtis. > But in Vaj's view they should get a proper instruction from > an authorized teacher if I understand him right. There is > no reason for him to support the practice of a practice he > considers fraudulent. OK, so by you would be perfectly OK for him to deliberately misrepresent TM instruction and practice because he considers it fraudulent. (Assuming in this case that he had done TM.) And if someone here who practiced one of the techniques he believes is authentic misrepresented it because they considered it fraudulent, presumably he wouldn't object, right? If he'd said "This doesn't apply according to TM instruction, but in other methods of mantra meditation..." and then gone on to say why he felt this was more appropriate, it would have passed ethical muster. And in any case, you were claiming he was misrepresenting TM instruction not because he thought it was fraudulent but to annoy TMers. Again, make up your mind. You're throwing out rationalizations right and left and substituting one for another at the drop of a hat. <snip> > > > If he has faked this then I would really laugh my ass off > > > at myself for being such a fool. Humor is one of my big > > > tests for all sorts of things in people. I trust it. > > > Perhaps too much? > > > > I think so, especially if you put so much weight on it you > > overlook the kind of thing I've been pointing out. > > Bogus claim which I hope my last two posts will put to rest. > You are not getting my point, that you are not getting his > point. I get your point, I just don't agree. It would have helped if you were able to say what his point *was*, but apparently you can't. <snip lots of uninformative repetition> > > > And I seriously doubt he has ever made an effort to prove > > > his background to to you Judy. > > > > He hasn't made an effort to prove his background to anyone > > on FFL. > > So why are you evaluating his statements as if he is? Bogus question. See above about the person claiming to be a physician who recommends antibiotics to cure a cold. <snip more repetitious, uninformative stuff> > > > And an appealing idea is that he never really did TM > > > because if he did, then he would understand that all > > > of us TMers really do reach the magic kingdom. > > > > Oh, bullshit. The issue here isn't whether TM works as > > it says, but whether it's practiced the way Vaj says. > > If he'd shown up here and started out by telling us > > his version of the instructions for TM, and we had no > > idea about his overall ultranegative perspective, we'd > > have been just as quick to point out that he didn't > > know what he was talking about. > > I don't see his perspective as any more ultranegitive than > Maharishi's own brand of "I've got it right and most people > don't." He is presenting a case for the purity of the > teaching which he believes Maharishi has damaged. What is > so negative about him doing what Maharishi claimed to be > doing? Says Curtis, completely avoiding my point and quibbling about the prefix "ultra" (which I think most here would agree with in any case). > > You almost sound as if you'd be OK with Vaj having > > misrepresented his experience with TM once you'd > > enjoyed your big laugh at yourself. > > I might be a little online hurt. But I never mind finding > out I am full of it about something I believe. At least > after I dust my ego off and all. Wow, that's impressive avoidance, Curtis. I was asking you how you'd feel about his deception. You know, ethics again, sorry. You're OK with liars. Not a problem as far as you're concerned. <snip the rest>
