OK, Vaj, here's my second attempt. Again, thanks for being willing to engage in reasoned discussion in this post. I hope we can continue it.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > > 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. > > I don't think what you referring to are "priviledged > communications" "Privileged" in the sense that you are privileged to see them whereas others are not. > they're simply people responding to the post reagrding some style > of mindfullness or some simple adjustment that prevented "laxity" > or sleep during meditation. It's an important problem--even in the > dome in FF--so people responded affirming that. But all the people > who responded *had* a problem *and solved it on their own*. Nothing > in checking or the TMO provided an answer for them. The *content* of a communication isn't what makes it privileged, so this is a non sequitur. But to address this on its own terms: Since the checking notes explicitly say that sleep during meditation is *not* a problem, no wonder they didn't find a "solution" in checking. That sleep is not a problem *is* the answer as far as checking is concerned. It appears that the only "problem" they had in this case was that they were incorrectly viewing sleep *as a problem*. As to "laxity," the only "laxity" I'm aware of in the TM context is not bothering to return to the mantra once you become aware you're off it. So the "problem" there is simply not following the instructions for meditation. Or did you have some other sense of "laxity" in mind? > > 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. > > This was a separate issue really. It came up twice before Rick's > recent post on the topic. If there's a tension in the room and no > one else brings it up, I will (unless it's something that has been > exhaustively repeated again and again and again). I swear to god, > boards I've been on only put me there for that reason. Another non sequitur, no need to address. <snip> > > But I'm not interested in pressing that point. I'm > > really only interested in the effortlessness > > question. > > But that is the question that's been answered already. Therefore I > have no need to lament or rehash. Well, no, of course it hasn't been answered. One quote of MMY quoting something from the Veda, without any context, does not constitute an answer to the question of whether TM is effortless. <snip> > The point is if you EVER have to bring you awareness or subtle > intention BACK, you are patching. I don't disagree with that. What I'm saying is that you never have to (except perhaps in the very beginning, and I'm not sure that's an accurate characterization of what happens even then--but I'd have to go into my theory of what the TM mantras are to explain my uncertainty on that point). > Conversely, if you sit down for your session and have the > intention "I will sit for 25 minutes", you have the bare intention > and transcend for 25 minutes and "come to" after those 25 minutes, > then you have not "patched" at all. Then, once you can do that > there are number of more degrees of refined intention to go. Note that I didn't mention "transcending" in my outline of the cycle. Whether one "transcends" or not during meditation is irrelevant to the point I'm making, if by "transcending" you mean experiencing transcendental consciousness by itself. But "transcending" is used in another sense in TM, i.e., the attention moving to more subtle levels of thought. Just closing the eyes--even if one has not sat down to meditate--results in transcending in this sense. > > > 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. > > For some people it does, for some it does not. Some people *never* > transcend. Sad, but true. True, but not necessarily "sad," if you mean they're not experiencing transcendental consciousness by itself. If the process never becomes automatic, that *is* "sad," but only in the sense that the person hasn't really got the knack of TM. > In the way you are describing some > conditioned or subconsciousness mental substratum is necessary to > "automatically" come back. Perhaps, but if it isn't conscious, to call it "effort" is a misnomer. > > 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. > > For a good number of people this will NOT be automatic--either > because they haven't repeated the "mind training" often enough to > overcome their own conditioning or because this method is not for > them or for a host of other possible reasons. The solution to the first is to continue to practice. It should eventually become automatic, because that's the nature of the process. As to the method being "not for them," that's a matter of psychology, not of the method itself. > I would suspect for > many people they will realize they are either caught in outward- > stroke thought chains They can only realize that they *were* caught in outward-stroke thought chains, not that they *are* caught in those chains. That realization arises only when the thought chain has come to an end--and then it arises automatically, spontaneously, without effort. There's nothing wrong with outward-stroke thought chains in the TM context. > or somehow back in the dualistic condition--and > they have to have *at least* the intention to return to the mantra- > impulse Once the thought arises that one's attention has not been on the mantra, the attention immediately and automatically turns to the thought/impulse of the mantra. It's like "Don't think of an elephant." Once you've had the thought not to think of an elephant, you can't *not* think of an elephant. > or even have to consciously re-introduce the mantra. I *very* strongly suspect that if someone thinks they have to consciously reintroduce the mantra, it's only because they are not recognizing that the mantra is already present in their attention. I had a long struggle with effort some years ago because I simply hadn't realized how faint the mantra had become. I thought I had to reintroduce it because I didn't recognize it when it was that faint. Once I learned to recognize it at that very subtle level, there was no more effort and no reintroducing necessary. > You have to realize there is a group of people who > will always be stuck here. I've said before that I thought there should be more emphasis on how faint the mantra can become. MMY once said, as I understand it, that it can become "infinitely faint." I suspect that for some people, the mantra becomes fainter faster than for others, and they may believe it isn't there when it really is. Yes, they can get "stuck" if they don't eventually realize what a really faint mantra is like. > You also have to recognize some people (This sentence got truncated somehow.) > And even if these people are "checked", you have realize--because > they technique of checking is "canned", i.e it's a memorized > script--some people will fall outside this script. Yes, I've made this point myself. If it were up to me, I'd add something to the checking algorithm for people who were having this problem that "faint" can mean REALLY REALLY REALLY FAINT, fainter than you might assume. > Eventually some will have to leave because of this. Well, nobody *has* to leave because of this, of course. > Irregardless you are describing some conditioned or > subconsciousness mental substratum is necessary to > "automatically" come back. Again, perhaps, but I don't think it makes sense to refer to this as "effort." > > 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. > > That's fine for you...but it's not fine for everyone. Nor should > we expect that it will be fine for everyone! Well, yes, we should; it should happen automatically, because that *is* the method. > You are describing some conditioned or subconsciousness mental > substratum is necessary to "automatically" come back. Again: It's like "Don't think of an elephant." Once you think "My attention isn't on the mantra," it can't *not* be on the mantra, at least for that instant. The mantra may be immediately supplanted by a thought, or by transcendental consciousness, but that's the cycle. > In truly effortless meditation, NOTHING is altered, not even the > eyes or the body--when something IS altered, these are some of the > hallmarks of dualistic meditation. On the mental level intent = > effort or as yogis prefer "the disease of effort". We'd need to clearly define a lot of the terms in these statements before we could discuss them productively. However, I suspect what you're describing here is an experience of a state of consciousness, not meditation per se. ------------------------ 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/
