Beautiful here today also. Went for a drive with my wife, and a stroll. Ended up in Los Gatos, which is tucked right into the hills, and close by. Slight chill in the air with clear skies. Ended up at a coffee place where we joked around, and then came home. A good friend and angel decided to stop by soon after, which was great because we haven't seen her in forever. My wife and I refer to her as 'Miss America' - all 'round super woman. The weather continues to be great, and not hot enough to warm up the mexican beer in the garage on the cement floor.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Very beautiful, navashok, thank you. I love that part about renouncing the > renunciation even. I've never before heard of the Ribhu Gita. Is it part > of the Vedic literature? > > > I don't think we really have to let go of anything. That which is, is > always letting go and holding on, That doesn't need any help from us. But I > just walked to the library and the air was so fresh and the sun huge and > orange on the western horizon. The branches of trees are still bare against > the light blue sky, some birds are singing. At such a time Truth is a sweet > companion. > > > ________________________________ > From: navashok <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:17 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from > > CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the > > surface of life.àSo we might not feel deep, even during TM.àAnd we > > shouldn't TRY to feel deep. > > Deep is only a word. A concept. Deep also is used in deep sleep. I sometimes > say, that I am very high up. But you are right. > > > > In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix > > of silence and liveliness together.àSo I extrapolate from that that > > it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. > > You can't try anyway. One has to remember that all these descriptions are > concepts, and unless we let go of the concepts, we can't really get there. > > Here from the Ribhu Gita: > > "All is a built-up structure of words and meanings. The apprehension of all > worlds does not exist. All holy waters are, indeed, unreal. All temples of > gods, too, are unreal." > > "All being only Consciousness, the name "all" never is. Renouncing all forms, > be of the certitude that all is Brahman." > > "All is Brahman; that is the Truth. The phenomenal world and prakriti > (manifestation), verily do not exist. Renounce the remembrance of prakriti > and resort to the remembrance of Brahman." > > "Then, renouncing even that, be firm in your own nature. Renouncing further > this "established nature", remain only as the Self." > > "Renouncing the renunciation even, ever leave off the idea of any difference. > Surrounding yourself yourself, abide in yourself yourself." > > "What the finger points out as "this" is a deceased thought; "this" is only > of words and speech." > > " "All" is supposition. There is no doubt of this. "All" is unreal. There is > no uncertainty of this. "All" is insignificant. There is no doubt of this. > "All" is delusion. There is no doubt of this." > > (Rib.G 18, 24-30) > > > ________________________________ > > From: navashok <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an > > object? > > > > > > à> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM > > > > > remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's > > > > > simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure > > > > > Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. > > > > > > > > > > In every other meditation technique with published research, you see > > > > > a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as > > > > > you become more experienced. > > > > > > > > > > In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with > > > > > regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where > > > > > you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their > > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two > > > > paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* > > > > are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never > > > > gets deeper or more profound) with "Pure Consciousness." > > > > I doubt that scientists would. > > > > > > No progress in the technique... > > > > > > It is easy to start and easy to do and that doesn't change. > > > > > > What DOES change is how closely the state outside of TM comes to resemble > > > the state during TM. > > > > But that's not all that is supposed to change. The quality of experience is > > supposed to change as well *during* meditation - as stress is released. > > Think of the snowplough analogy - as resistances (stresses) are being > > removed, the way gets more clear, and the experience of transcendence will > > be clearer and more prolonged. > > > > And for advanced techniques - you will go into transcendence more slowly, > > so that you are more conscious of the process. The diving angle changes, > > how is that reflected in your theory? That, being more conscious of the > > 'transcending' (I still put it in bracelets as it is really a concept - > > transcendence is all pervading and cannot be isolated, especially if you > > want to experience it consciously.) > > > > So this process of being more conscious in the transcending process, > > whatever it is, has to be reflected in EEG, for all what it's worth. > > Initial transcendence is not clear transcendence, it is just a hazy > > slipping into it and out of it. We know it, as teachers, but it's not what > > you say to people. > > > > > > As for "not trusing non-TM teachers," I can say that TM > > > > teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they > > > > were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far > > > > as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have > > > > any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They > > > > know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing > > > > about any of the others. They are actually *prevented* > > > > from learning about any of the others, under pain of > > > > banishment. > > > > > > Well, ok bu... > > > > > > > > > > > Just sayin'... If you dispute this, cite things that > > > > were taught to you on your TM Teacher Training course. > > > > Oh, that's right, you can't. Again, just sayin'... > > > > > > > > > Where have I attempted to dispute anything about what is taught to TM > > > teachers? > > > > > > My impression has always been that TM teachers are technicians who have > > > been trained to handle things in a specific situation that has been set > > > up via the "7 steps." > > > > Apart from TM teachers just being 'loud-speakers' who parrot the teachings, > > they have the additional advantage that they saw a lot more tapes of > > Maharishi during all those courses. There he accidentally let's out > > sometimes some of his secrets, or he contradicts himself. With that you get > > a sort of different background on many things. And yes, TM teachers usually > > have a lot of experience on rounding courses, or later siddhi courses where > > you meditate a lot more. That *might* be a difference to some plain vanilla > > sidhas or meditators - it doesn't have to be. > > > > > Go too far outside that narrow field of expertise, and they're really no > > > better than anyone else, any more than an x-rray tech is competent to be > > > a lorry driver. > > > > > > > > > L > > > > > >
