> > Not everyone here has the same definition of > > 'meditation' that you do. Yours seems to involve > > the *TM* definition, which I think I can sum up > > best by quoting one TM supporter here who described > > it yesterday: "Not maintaining transcendental > > consciousness is not a 'failure' in the TM context, > > of course. Nor is having thoughts. These are an > > integral part of TM." > > > > I have no problem with this description, as long > > as it is of Transcendental Meditation, as taught > > by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. > > Hmm, you might want to let Vaj know it's an accurate > description, in light of his own description of TM, > "...failing to maintain transcendence and then having > the subtle (or even unconscious) intent to return to > mantra to correct failure to maintain transcendent..."
I find his description of the *mechanics* of TM very accurate, thank you. You don't because they're just not expressed in the language you were taught to think in, and that was to some extent forced upon you. Every time you mentioned anything indicating effort or intention, you were SLAPPED DOWN by your TM teachers, who suggested that you get checked or they prompted you to rephrase what you said using language that implied effortlessness. You were trained to value effortlessness and PUT DOWN any hint of effort or even any hint of expectation of transcendence. Look babe, you've already *admitted* here that some intention is involved in sitting to meditate. You have agreed with one more flexible TMer here that there is some "subtle effort" involved in "coming back to the mantra." But you WERE taught to come back to the mantra; THAT is what Vaj is describing above. You don't like his *way* of describing it because you don't like him, and because he's using "unofficial" "OFF THE PROGRAM" language, which you have been programmed to believe is BAD. > > But others of us here > > practice other forms of meditation, and believe > > that not being able to experience TC (samadhi) > > or not being able to maintain that experience for > > long periods of time IS a bit of a 'failure.' In > > our paradigm for what meditation is, it's all > > *about* transcending and maintaining transcendence; > > everything else is merely the stuff that leads up > > to that. > > BUDDHA ALERT!!! Nope. Just a different paradigm. As it turns out, many forms of Buddhist meditation wouldn't neces- sarily value samadhi; the one I practice does. > > What DOES interest me is the sometimes apalling > > ignorance in long-term TMers of the larger world > > of meditation practice, and the many different > > paradigms and descriptions of What Meditation Is > > that exist in that larger world. My experience is > > that TMers tend to look *down* on other forms of > > meditation so much that they don't WANT to learn > > anything about them or hear about them. And they > > *especially* don't want to hear about techniques > > in which the practitioners spend half to most of > > their meditation time in samadhi, while they > > themselves spend much of their time discussing > > all the different things they go through trying > > to GET to samadhi. > > Any TMer who worries about "trying to GET to samadhi" > is OFF THE PROGRAM. Thank you for confirming my description of you above as having been programmed. Good parrot. Here's a cracker.
