And this is where SSRS and I disagree. Recognizing ANYTHING is a form of thought. That is, by definition, the very first act of the intellect: the universal conscious notes that it exists. Likewise, it can be the very first act of our own internal equivalent: we note that we exist -that we have pure consciousness. But since we have noting, we have the ability to decide as well.
And.. the realization that you are not thinking the mantra can also BE the mantra anyway. Avoiding the thinking of pink elephants, or recognizing that you are not thinking about pink elephants, is still thinking about pink elephants. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote: > > > Lawson. > > You do not seem to understand SSRS's instructions about meditation with > a mantra. Is this because you have never heard those instructions? > > SSRS pointed out that a meditator does not need to place attention back > upon the mantra during meditation just because they become aware they > are not "thinking the mantra". Recognition of "not thinking > the mantra" does not itself constitute a requirement to "think > the mantra". Likewise, the realization of "not thinking the > mantra" does not, in itself, constitute "a form of > thinking". > > The reason is simple. The nature of awareness is witnessing > (sakshi-j�ana). This is pure Vedanta. > > When the field of experience subsides with the ceasing (nirodha) of > every external or internal experience, including the termination of > I-consciousness (aham-pratyaya), what remains is the awareness that is > naturally present as the inner self (pratyag-atman). > > Awareness is a seer (drista). It is not the cognizer of a cognitive > activity (pramata). It is not a knower (j�aatri), a doer (kartri) or > an enjoyer (bhoktri) but rather is knowingness itself. The seer is the > witness-consciousness (sakshin) which witnesses the ending of all forms > of experience during meditation and simply remains as is, uninvolved and > prior to all experience. > > SSRS's instruction is founded upon this realization and is the > pointing-out instruction which allows meditators to remain as they truly > are. They remain, during this period of "silent awareness", as > sheer seeing (dristi-matrataa) until cognitive, affective or sensory > activity causes limited identification once again. > > Thus recognizing or remembering the mantra occurs as a natural > consequence rather than from a demand to "think the mantra". > ........................................................................\ > .. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Though it proly would not work for TM to broadside SSRavi > Shankar as his meditation is so like TM; evidently is also 'effortless' > though he uses different mantras. Can't pick the same fight over > 'effortlessness' that way as with the Buddhists so evidently AOL for as > large as it is, is strategically ignored. > > > > > > > > > > > > > From what I hear, SSRS has decided that people should not bother > returning to the mantra if they find themselves in pure consciousness. > That is an important distinction, if correct, and to me, it misses the > point of TM: > > > > > > > > > > Well, 'pure consciousness' is one of those correct experiences of > meditation listed in the TM second nite lecture. > > > > Pure consciousness during TM is no more or less correct than falling > asleep or having an itch. > > > > > >Sitting activated by transcending in Brahman could be that too. > Though yours is an interesting explanation about how some TM'ers can > look so spiritually anemic after decades of their mental practice > interrupting their silence coming back to the mantra. Possbly explains > why folks may have withered away from meditating for lack of cultivated > experience. It is an interesting distinction in the sublimity of > meditation practice. Of course, constantly coming back to a mantra > dovetails for someone disposed with an active mind as in, 'keep on > keeping on'. It gives them something to do. It seems some have done > that for decades based on instruction. You make a really interesting > distinction. > > > > > > > So you agree with SSRS on this, i take it. Been checked lately? > > > > > > if you can notice you are not thinking the mantra, you are no > longer in PC anyway, so there's no point in "enjoying it," as you aren't > really there. You're just fooling yourself. > > > > > > > > > > Om,and who is fooling who with that description? > > > > > > > WHo is not fooling who for that matter? > > > > Are you trying to make some point or merely score points? > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I know that people like to think that SSRS has taught many > millions to meditate, but in fact, the group meditation that he led a > few years ago, as far as I can tell, was just a "do your own thing." It > wasn't that many people practicing what his organization teaches. ANd > the primary focus of the AOL is breathing exercise, not meditation, as I > understand it. > > > > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > > > > > > >
