Curtis, at the end of this, I'm responding to your questions about Buck, since I'm almost out of posts.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: <snip> > > > 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 are off to a bad start. I don't agree with the > "problem" you have with his terminology and have spelled > out why. You haven't *addressed* the problem I've outlined. You've tiptoed all around it. In what you wrote right after having read the posts I referred you to, you defended a number of points that I hadn't disputed, that weren't among my objections. I told you that in my response. The idea of a distinction between thinking the mantra and thinking any other thought is one of those I haven't objected to, and yet here you are bringing it up again as if I had. And when you weren't defending points I had never objected to, you went all meta about how I didn't get his point, or your point, or both, that I was just trying to make him wrong, and that I was confusing levels and so on. But you *haven't addressed what I WAS objecting to*. I went back over the posts just now to make sure. When I say "wasn't objecting to," I mean wasn't what I consider evidence that Vaj was never a TM teacher, not that these were necessarily points that I agree with. As far as I'm concerned, those are two different categories. He says a whole lot that I disagree with, but only certain things that he gets *factually* wrong about the practice and the instruction fall into the category of evidence that he was never a TM teacher. The main ones are "waiting for the mantra" and "monitoring one's meditation" and that "one is enjoined to maintain mindfulness." And those are the ones you haven't addressed. <snip> Here, finally, you take something of a stab at it: > > > 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? (Although you didn't respond to the above.) > > What *was* he saying, Curtis? You keep saying I'm missing > > his point, but you never say what you think his point *is*. > > I explained what I thought this meant in detail. You really, really did not, Curtis. Here, as noted, you sort of do: > It is a way of looking at the use of the mantra as different > from other thoughts which was the context of the point. (No objection--see above for what I mean by "objection"-- to this. But of course it's not what is meant in the TM instruction by "just like any other thought." That refers to effortlessness. It's "just as you would think any other thought," not "the mantra is a thought just like any other." Of course it's different in that you entertain it until you lose it. Duh.) > There is no part of my awareness that repeats any other > thoughts, with the mantra there is, he is calling that > monitoring, neurologically he is correct. That is how > the mind knows that we are off the mantra. I don't know how you can call that "monitoring," neurologically or any other way. The train of ordinary thought has ended, and the next thought that pops up is, "I'm not entertaining the mantra." How is that "monitoring"? > He made further distinctions which I also explained > before which distinguished beginners and experienced > meditators. None of which had to do with "waiting for the mantra" or "mindfulness" or "monitoring one's meditation." <snip> > > > 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.) > > I can't find where I said this. That's exactly what your response implies in context. > > 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? > > I'm just gunna watch you go down this trail but not > join you. That's also implied. If it's OK for him to do it with TM, it should be OK for somebody else to do it with a technique he approves of. <snip> > > > > > 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). > > Says Judy fixating on a word that had nothing to do with > my point about what constitutes being negative. Your point about what constitutes being negative had nothing to do with mine. Read what I wrote again, please. Replace the term "ultranegative" with whatever word you think is appropriate to describe Vaj's attitude toward TM. The point doesn't change. It refutes your claim at the top of this segment. BTW, in the other half of this discussion, you said something I didn't address about raunchy's exchange with Vaj. I went back and read that exchange again just now. Here's what you wrote: > She was missing the same point I believe you > were. This discussion is a mixup of levels > of understanding. And I don't mean that you > don't have a good one about your practice of > TM. I mean you are both mixing up levels of > discussion from the instruction to the > experience in our advanced practice. I have > heard Maharishi introduce the idea of an > effortless effort. What Vaj seems to be > saying is what we were discussing earlier. > We just start up the meditation machine and > don't have to come back to the mantra the > way a new meditator does. (Are you saying experienced meditators never either have ordinary thoughts or transcend, that we never have to come back to the mantra because meditation is 100 percent mantra, we never lose the mantra? If not, then we *do* have to come back to the mantra.) > I believe that > this is what he is talking about. But > whether I am right or wrong about that, it > doesn't mean that he doesn't understand TM, > quite the contrary. He is making a > distinction between beginner and advanced > practice of mantra meditations. And it is > close to how I would describe my own actual > practice rather than the words used when I > am teaching a new meditator. In fact, here's how the exchange between Vaj and raunchy went: --Vaj says something specifically about how TM is practiced and/or what the instructions are. --raunchy points out that this is not how TM is practiced and not what the instructions are. --Vaj says "You believe that because you don't know anything about mantra meditation but what you were told about TM." IOW, total non sequitur. Go back and look at it again. Vaj sidesteps every single time. Example: ----- [Vaj:] > >> Technically the style of mantra repetition where one > >> has to return to the mantra [i.e., TM] still is > >> called "faulty" or "defective" in Sanskrit since one > >> has to constantly re-engage the mantra as it is lost. > >> It's one of the lower levels of mantra practice. > > [raunchy:] > > WRONG. This is a gross misunderstanding of TM. > [I.e., in TM losing the mantra is not considered "faulty," to the contrary; that's one of the major distinctions between TM and many other types of mantra practice.] > [Vaj:] > No, it's actually the level of mantra practice where you > must repeatedly return to mantra. You just were just never > told about mantra practice...sorry. Not my fault you still > parrot these misunderstood ideas. ----- See the sidestep? ***************************************************** >From another post, re Buck: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > So Buck used my name in his "subtle satire" because he > really is aligned with my POV? He is really saying, I > wish Curtis would post more critical things about the > movement and meditation because he is right on and I > too think that Maharishi oversold his technique? Er, no. He's mocking those who would treat apostates harshly. > But you always know which is which, unlike those anti- > whateverers who need broad burlesque? No, every so often I'm not sure what he's getting at. But I never used the term "anti"-anything. Where did you get that from? > So what was Doug trying to convey about me in that > post? If the target of his satire was the movement's > repression, why was I included in the rant about the > movement? What subtle message did you get that I > missed? Boy, sometimes I wonder about you, Curtis. You're one of the people on FFL whom the movement's repressive faction would like to repress if they could. But being against repression doesn't necessarily mean one agrees with the views of its targets. Could you really not figure that out for yourself?
