--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > wrote: > >> Unlike your Clear Light meditation, in which it takes decades > >> of practice to accomplish anything approaching effortlessness. > > > > I don't understand why the effortless thing is such a big deal. For > > me, the glaringly obvious elephant in the corner is people who have > > allegedly moved on to better paths than TM who spend significant > > amounts of time online, lashing out at TM. If their current path is so > > superior and advanced, why spend so much time wallowing in that kind > > of spiritual insecurity and ego drama? > > > Simply because, within the traditions themselves (including Hindu > traditions), the question of what effortlessness is, is well > defined, known and understood. > > When it is lied about or used falsely to promote a certain item it > therefore raises eyebrows. For a long time--largely due to > overwhelming naivete or fear of questioning authorities--this > glaring error went unquestioned and the lie came to be believed by > large numbers of people. The fact still remains that so many > people *believed what they were told*.
Or believed their own personal experience, of course. <snip> > Why is it important? It is important because the distinction > between truly effortless meditation and meditative paths which > use subtle effort are very basic distinctions between two > contrasting types of meditative praxis. It's basic. This > experiential distinction becomes more important as one progresses > on the path--but it's also important for having the ability to > speak to other styles of meditation practitioners in an authentic > way. If the person you are talking to doesn't know any better, you > wouldn't notice any overt difference (other than the fact that you > have propagated your own unknowing error on to others). If they do > know the difference, of course they will stop taking you seriously. *Even if* everything else you say were true (and I seriously doubt it is; I think you simply don't grasp what TM *is*), this last part is ridiculous. If there is, indeed, some kind of "subtle effort" involved in TM, it's so *exceedingly* subtle that it's utterly irrelevant to TM practitioners. The number of people to whom the purported distinction you cite would actually matter is insignificant. And to try to explain that distinction to people learning TM would only be hopelessly confusing and ruin TM as a useful tool. The folks who find the alleged distinction important are more than welcome not to take TM seriously. But they should stay the hell out of the way of those who could benefit from TM as it is taught.
