(Curtis, begins below the ad)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> [Curtis wrote:] > I guess we are at an impasse. I believe I have and > you just aren't buying it, I can't even find it to decide whether I'm buying it or not. > just as I am not buying it as evidence of Vaj not > being a teacher. He is using non Tmy language for > a subjective process that you and I both do. Not just language but the concepts the language represents (as I've said several times now), which are not compatible with TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. > You find it does not match your experience, I find no > problem with it. He didn't say "vigilantly monitoring > so that no other thoughts could intrude as you whip > your brain into a synaptic frenzy through diligent, > focused mantra application." Straw man. Nobody suggested he did. Even very subtle effort can inhibit transcending. > He said "monitoring" which is another word for noticing > in this context, No, "monitoring" and "noticing" are not synonyms in this context. Monitoring is intentional, noticing is not. Noticing is what should happen in TM. Thanks for supplying the appropriate term. > and the phrase "waiting for the mantra" which both > can happen in my TM meditation. Would you mind describing the "waiting for the mantra" situation you believe happens in your TM meditation? <snip> > > > > 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? > > When I taught TM I used the official terms of the > movement exclusively. Vaj is not bound by that now. Right, he uses terms for concepts that don't apply in TM. > There is a mental process of monitoring that gets > automated in TM so you remember you are meditating and > not just thinking. It might not be the best term to > use in teaching a new meditator who might interpret it > as "constantly monitoring". But it is accurate to what > has to happen to continue to meditate. Part of our brain > is actually monitoring while we meditate. Speak for your own brain. That isn't what my brain does. <snip> > > > 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"? > > We must agree to disagree here. About the use of the > term and what it means about Vaj. What I described is called "noticing." It's nonintentional, unlike 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." > > The term mindfulness doesn't come from TM language. > Can you make a guess where it comes from knowing his > background? Yes, we all know where the term and the concept come from. They're entirely appropriate in that tradition. They aren't in TM. Mindfulness is a sustained practice of constant or at least frequent monitoring (that's what one attempts, at any rate). You said above that you wouldn't use the term "monitoring" with TM students lest they think it meant "constant monitoring." But that's what "mindfulness" is. >From Wikipedia: "The Buddha advocated that one should establish mindfulness (satipatthana) in one's day-to-day life maintaining as much as possible a calm awareness of one's bodily functions, sensations (feelings), objects of consciousness (thoughts and perceptions), and consciousness itself." It's also referred to as *smrti* in Buddhism. Vaj has used "smrti" to refer to what one is "enjoined" to do during TM. > As I said he is collaging together his past > and present understanding of meditation of meditation > and describing it as he sees TM now without regard to > the TM rules for how to speak about it. And without regard to whether the concepts he describes apply in TM. <snip> > We are talking about different things. As I said > before, when I read the quotes out of context I > thought about it one way. When I read the posts I > thought about it another way. He is not talking > to a new meditator he was talking to you and > Raunchy. He gave his view. You think it reveals > something that I don't. I don't see him as some > sinister deceiver, misleading people here. Not a "sinister" deceiver, an *incompetent* deceiver. I think he's a fraud not just with regard to his TM status but with regard to his purported knowledge of other traditions. As emptybill put it, he "weaves a web to dazzle the uninformed." But if you have a good sense of language in general-- not just TM lingo--you can tell that's what he's doing even if you are uninformed about the subject matter. Many of his posts are just incoherent structurally and semantically. It's not only that he leaves out words and makes typos and gets his syntax garbled, it's more fundamental and all-encompassing than that. I would bet a large sum of money that Vaj couldn't begin to get away with the stuff he spouts here in a forum whose participants were knowledgeable about the topics--just as quite a few of us here don't buy that he knows what he's talking about where TM is concerned. (And then there are the occasional folks here who are familiar with the other traditions he talks about, like emptybill, who say he doesn't know what he's talking about regarding those traditions either.) And if you want to see one of his many attempts at outright deception, check out the post I'm going to make shortly about his "gym teacher" trope. > He has always seemed like an earnest advocate for > his POV on meditation. That view hasn't changed after > this look at his use of terms. Oh, he's earnest all right. <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 tellng 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. > > How many times do I have to repeat my view of this. I > don't buy your analysis on his use of terms. What I said had nothing to do with his use of terms. Curtis, I left all this in because it's such a clear example of the avoidance dance you so often indulge in when we're debating and you get stuck, even on a relatively trivial point, as here. You simply stop engaging and go off on a tangent. You ventured a speculation as to why it would be "appealing" for us to think he'd never done TM (up at the top of this segment), because he refused to recognize TM's effectiveness. Let me rephrase my response: Even if he had introduced himself as a long-term faithful, devoted TB TMer and TM teacher, if he had started out by telling us his version of the instructions for TM, we'd have been just as quick to point out that he didn't know what he was talking about. (And that's with regard to the *concepts*, not just the words.) What *you* think of his version of the instructions for TM is irrelevant to my point. That you think MMY was just as negative as Vaj is is irrelevant to my point. My point is that no matter what Vaj's attitude was toward TM, the things he says about how it's practiced and what the instructions involve would create the suspicion that he was not, after all, familiar with TM. I'm sure you'll find yet another way to dance away from this, but that will just prove my point about your debating tactics. > > 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.) > > Experienced meditators witness the activity of their > meditation. It changes the dynamic a lot. This > perspective is straight from Maharishi. Please elaborate on how this relates to what I just said. It looks like yet another non sequitur to me. <snip> > > See the sidestep? > > No, I see him talking about another aspect of meditation > that is valid and a TM teacher reacting to the words used > because they are not TMy. OK. I don't believe you're so insensitive to context that you don't really recognize the sidestep, the non sequitur. > I suspect it is the translation "faulty" about the > beginner stage that set you guys off. No. The point is that it isn't "faulty" in the TM context, whatever it might be in other traditions. TM is *based on* the cycle of losing and reacquiring the mantra; that cycle is said to be the engine of development of consciousness. It's a Luther-vs.-the-Vatican type of situation. It isn't that Luther can't comprehend the Vatican's version of Christianity; he comprehends it *and rejects it*. Unlike the Vatican, he doesn't think good works make a person good, but rather that a good person will do good works. That the Vatican says Luther is deluded (and vice-versa) is to be expected; it doesn't tell us anything about which perspective is more accurate. What it *does* tell us is that the two perspectives are *different*. But what Vaj maintains is that because MMY's approach to meditation is different than the traditional approach he favors, therefore MMY must be wrong. He's welcome to that opinion. But it isn't an *argument*. > He clarifies that it is the "level of mantra practice" > but neither of you can get past his use of "faulty" > for beginner practice of TM. What he calls "faulty" occurs in experienced TM practice as well. It's as if one were to criticize modern dance as a "faulty" version of ballet because the female dancers don't dance en pointe. Or criticize Gregorian chant as "faulty" because it doesn't use harmony, or modern poetry as "faulty" because it doesn't rhyme. It's not even insulting, it's just ignorant. > He has clarified this point numerous times in the > past so I can't understand why you are not getting > it. You really should stop suggesting that we don't get it when what we're doing is *disagreeing* with it. Or if you do make that suggestion, you have to make it for Vaj as well: We've clarified that point for him numerous times in the past, so we can't understand why he is not getting it.
