--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2006, at 1:42 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 10, 2006, at 10:58 AM, authfriend wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mar 9, 2006, at 8:42 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@>
wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mar 9, 2006, at 6:38 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
<vajranatha@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > Wow, tat's a lot of words!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which you obviously don't want to deal with.
Especially
> > > > > > > > your oh-so-convenient forgettery with regard to your
post
> > > > > > > > on the checking procedure.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The simple answer is this:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Checking shows how the mechanics of effort are used.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In fact, the "simple answer" is that checking shows
how
> > > > > > > > the mechanics of effort are *not* used.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again: If you didn't get this, you never got what TM
is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The bottom line in this case is simple:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if it uses "patched placement", that is if it uses some
> > > > > > > method where the mind has to be brought back to
*something*
> > > > > > > (in this case the mantra) in order to work,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right. Not the case with TM except in the early stages
> > > > > > of practice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Think: What is the mind "brought back" *from* in TM?
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly--that which needed "patched". If it didn't
> > > > > need "patched" (if you didn't "need" to meditate), you'd
> > > > > experience the transcendent through all states!
> > > > >
> > > > > But if it is being brought back from the transcendent, it
*is*
> > > > > being patched. Oh well, subtle effort. So much talk.
> > > >
> > > > Says Vaj, avoiding responding to my question, just as I
> > > > predicted:
> > > >
> > > > > > (Vaj won't respond to this, just as Barry didn't
> > > > > > respond to a similar question from Lawson.)
> > > >
> > > > To address his nonresponse on its own terms: There is
> > > > no "bringing back" in TM, either from transcendence
> > > > or from the recognition (thought) that one is not
> > > > thinking the mantra. If Vaj was meditating by "bringing
> > > > back" the mind from either to the mantra, he most
> > > > certainly wasn't doing TM.
> > >
> > > Ignoratio elenchi.
> >
> > Wrongaroonie (unless you're referring to your own
> > nonresponse).
> >
> > Your question has already been answered
> > > numerous times, you just can't accept what you're hearing is
all.
> >
> > My question was: What is the mind "brought back" from?
> >
> > That was a *rhetorical* question, you see. The answer
> > is: It is not "brought back" from anything.
> >
> > But perhaps you miswrote. Would you care to rephrase
> > your assertion so that it actually *applies* to TM?
> >
> > Or you're certainly welcome to try to *defend* the
> > phrase "brought back" in the TM context if you
> > really believe it does apply.
> >
> > If you aren't willing or able to do either, I believe I
> > have grounds for suspecting you're thoroughly confused
> > about what is involved in TM practice.
> >
> > > Nothing new here. <sigh>
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > > > > > Very wise sharing on that by Rick (I also received
> > > > > > > a number of posts off list on that one where numerous
people
> > > > > > > shared similar experiences).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, yes, we know, Vaj, you remind us often about how
> > > > > > you have access to all *kinds* of privileged data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well you heard the same thing if you were *listening*. He
posted
> > > > > it here.
> > > >
> > > > He posted what you had received offlist?
> > >
> > > As you've been told several times, it was posted here--actually
> > > Rick has posted it here, on this list, three times.
> >
> > Yes, you've said that already. Perhaps you didn't
> > understand my question: Rick has posted here, three times,
> > what you had received offlist?
> >
> > The response should be a simple "Yes" or "No."
> >
> > > > > > > Really if you have questions
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You seem to be imagining things. I didn't ask a
> > > > > > question.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually you asked what Mahesh said specifically at Estes
Park
> > > > > several times--so did your side kick.
> > > >
> > > > If by "sidekick" you mean Lawson, and if by "question"
> > > > you mean what MMY had said specifically at Estes Park,
> > > > we asked *you* because you were the person who had brought
> > > > it up.
> > > >
> > > > The answer to our question therefore was, "I don't know
> > > > exactly what he said at Estes Park." But somehow it seems
> > > > to be impossible for you to say "I don't know."
> > >
> > > I have every reason to believe what Rick is saying not only
> > > because he was there and I trust him, but also because I
> > > understand experientially what's going on.
> >
> > Fine. The answer to my question, the one you're for
> > some reason unable to voice, is still "I don't know
> > exactly what MMY said at Estes Park."
> >
> > > It's beyond me as to why
> > > you are so entrenched in denying the obvious
> >
> > It's beyond me as to why you are so entrenched in
> > denying that you beat your wife.
> >
> > What's obvious is that it *isn't* obvious, but
> > rather a source of considerable confusion even
> > among those who have been trained as TM teachers.
> >
> > > --but it's a common
> > > thing you do, this TM apologist trip. Whatever.
> >
> > If there weren't such confusion, you'd be able to
> > respond straightforwardly to the points I'm
> > making, pro or con. Not only can you not do so, you
> > repeatedly attempt to shift ground or otherwise
> > obscure the debate.
> >
>
> This is just another typical Judy "baiting" post. I shouldn't even
> bother answering it, but alas, here I am again answering it.
>
> We do only have one quote, presumably from Mahesh, which Rick has
> provided. My offline conversations are really, truly none of your
> business.
Of course, I never suggested they were. I took a
little jab at you when you mentioned the offline
posts because, as I said, you're constantly making
references to having had privileged communications.
In response, you appeared to contradict yourself
by saying Rick had "posted it here." No big deal,
but I pointed out the contradiction. It's not
relevant to the discussion of effortlessness, only
to your unwillingness to be straightforward.
> You have your answer, now live with it. Stop desperately
> trying to find some point here or there to distract.
You're the one making a fuss over a minor jab, Vaj.
And of course you still haven't resolved the
contradiction.
But I'm not interested in pressing that point. I'm
really only interested in the effortlessness
question.
> It's not the big deal you want to make, it's subtle distinction in
> types of meditation--and thus may not ever have any importance to
> you if you remain a TM practitioner.
Yes, it's a subtle distinction, but it's a crucially
important one. You completely miss the significance
of TM if you think there's effort involved, even very
subtle effort.
> Remember when we forget the mantra, we quietly come back to it.
> It's a very simple, natural process.
Do you not see the difference between "come back to"
and "bring back to"? "Come back to" is much less
intentional. The TM verbal instructions can't completely
avoid intentional language, but they come as close as
they can.
And the point *I* was making initially is that only
when you've first begun the practice do you exercise
even *that* much intention. Later on the process
becomes automatic.
At least in my experience, it goes like this:
1. I sit down to meditate, I close my eyes.
2. In a few seconds, mantra arises spontaneously.
3. After awhile, I spontaneously realize my attention
hasn't been on the mantra.
4. Mantra immediately arises spontaneously again.
5. 1-4 repeats.
I don't "come back to" the mantra. The instant I
realize my attention hasn't been on it, I find that
my attention is on it again.
It's a cycle that repeats automatically, entirely
spontaneously, throughout the meditation period, until
the thought arises, again spontaneously, that I've
been experiencing this cycle for 20 minutes. Then
the cycle stops, also spontaneously.
Where is the effort?
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
