[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
> > > > So, most mantra meditation is TM and has been TM for > > > > centuries. > > > > > > > The other way around: TM is just a form "yogic meditation" > > > which has been taught for centuries. > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > So, TM is yogic meditation that has been taught for centuries. > > Bhairitu wrote: > NO. > You sound confused. You said that TM is a form yogic meditation which has been taught for centuries. > TM is A FORM of yogic meditation that has been taught > for centuries. > Yes. That's what I said. TM is a form of yogic meditation, which has been taught for centuries. > The active word is FORM! > TM is a form of yogic meditation, Raja Yoga, that has been taught for centuries. Patanjali mentions the TM form of yogic meditation in his Yoga Sutras - all other forms of Hindu yogic meditation came after Patanjali, circa 200 B.C. So, TM has been taught for centuries.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Richard J. Williams wrote: >>> So, most mantra meditation is TM and has been TM for >>> centuries. >>> >>> > Bhairitu wrote: > >> The other way around: TM is just a form "yogic meditation" >> which has been taught for centuries. >> >> > So, TM is yogic meditation that has been taught for centuries. NO. TM is A FORM of yogic meditation that has been taught for centuries. The active word is FORM!
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
> > So, most mantra meditation is TM and has been TM for > > centuries. > > Bhairitu wrote: > The other way around: TM is just a form "yogic meditation" > which has been taught for centuries. > So, TM is yogic meditation that has been taught for centuries.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Richard J. Williams wrote: > Bhairitu wrote: > >> Most mantra meditation does not vary from TM much >> at all because TM meditation was borrowed from the >> way mantra meditation has been taught for centuries >> (but with different mantras for you nitpickers). >> >> > So, most mantra meditation is TM and has been TM for > centuries. The other way around: TM is just a form "yogic meditation" which has been taught for centuries.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Bhairitu wrote: > Most mantra meditation does not vary from TM much > at all because TM meditation was borrowed from the > way mantra meditation has been taught for centuries > (but with different mantras for you nitpickers). > So, most mantra meditation is TM and has been TM for centuries.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Thanks Bairitu, I agree about TM Teachers being too slap dash with the mantra. When I was initiated,I sat down the next day to do my morning meditation,could not think of my mantra,rang my teacher in a panic,he calmly said he would check it at the afternoon first day follow up. He was a nice old man in his seventies,I caught up with him years later,and he had reached the ripe old age of 96! When he taught me,he had not yet done the siddhis,he did them the following year in 1978. I got him to repeat my mantra several times,and then I wrote it down phonetically so as never to forget it again,I kept it for years! Thanks for all your help,I really appreciate it. Jai Ma, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At a subtler level as with any mantra meditation you're not going to be > able to tell what exactly the pronunciation is. You'll always start > with the mantra clearly and a good teacher will make sure you have the > correct understanding of the pronunciation (it's too slap dash in TM). > Just like TM it can turn into a "faint idea or feeling " more than a > clear pronunciation. Most mantra meditation does not vary from TM much > at all because TM meditation was borrowed from the way mantra meditation > has been taught for centuries (but with different mantras for you > nitpickers). Of course we can "nitpick" about concentration as there > are some schools that emphasize that but not mine. In fact what some > gurus may call "concentration" is the same process as TM of just > bringing the mind back to the mantra when you realize you're off it > rather than forcing the mind on it. > > > biosoundbill wrote: > > Hi Bhairitu, > > > > Does it matter if the pronounciation of a longer mantra changes as > > it becomes more refined ,just as ones TM Mantra changes when > > meditating effortlessly. > > > > Namaste, > > > > Billy > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > >> biosoundbill wrote: > >> > >>> Bhairitu, > >>> > >>> I meant to ask you as you meditate with a longer mantra > >>> effortlessly,are you able to let go completely as in TM where > >>> > > the > > > >>> bija can become very faint,unclear, and barely recognizable.Are > >>> > > you > > > >>> able to allow a longer mantra to become very faint,unclear, and > >>> barely recognizable also? > >>> > >>> >From my preception it seems that a longer mantra would,unlike > >>> > > TM, > > > >>> require a degree of concentration! > >>> > >>> Namaste, > >>> > >>> Billy > >>> > >> Yes the longer mantra will refine to a very faint idea. After a > >> > > while > > > >> the mantra will also just go on it's own so no concentration > >> > > required. > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
At a subtler level as with any mantra meditation you're not going to be able to tell what exactly the pronunciation is. You'll always start with the mantra clearly and a good teacher will make sure you have the correct understanding of the pronunciation (it's too slap dash in TM). Just like TM it can turn into a "faint idea or feeling " more than a clear pronunciation. Most mantra meditation does not vary from TM much at all because TM meditation was borrowed from the way mantra meditation has been taught for centuries (but with different mantras for you nitpickers). Of course we can "nitpick" about concentration as there are some schools that emphasize that but not mine. In fact what some gurus may call "concentration" is the same process as TM of just bringing the mind back to the mantra when you realize you're off it rather than forcing the mind on it. biosoundbill wrote: > Hi Bhairitu, > > Does it matter if the pronounciation of a longer mantra changes as > it becomes more refined ,just as ones TM Mantra changes when > meditating effortlessly. > > Namaste, > > Billy > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> biosoundbill wrote: >> >>> Bhairitu, >>> >>> I meant to ask you as you meditate with a longer mantra >>> effortlessly,are you able to let go completely as in TM where >>> > the > >>> bija can become very faint,unclear, and barely recognizable.Are >>> > you > >>> able to allow a longer mantra to become very faint,unclear, and >>> barely recognizable also? >>> >>> >From my preception it seems that a longer mantra would,unlike >>> > TM, > >>> require a degree of concentration! >>> >>> Namaste, >>> >>> Billy >>> >> Yes the longer mantra will refine to a very faint idea. After a >> > while > >> the mantra will also just go on it's own so no concentration >> > required. > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Hi Bhairitu, Does it matter if the pronounciation of a longer mantra changes as it becomes more refined ,just as ones TM Mantra changes when meditating effortlessly. Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > biosoundbill wrote: > > Bhairitu, > > > > I meant to ask you as you meditate with a longer mantra > > effortlessly,are you able to let go completely as in TM where the > > bija can become very faint,unclear, and barely recognizable.Are you > > able to allow a longer mantra to become very faint,unclear, and > > barely recognizable also? > > > > >From my preception it seems that a longer mantra would,unlike TM, > > require a degree of concentration! > > > > Namaste, > > > > Billy > Yes the longer mantra will refine to a very faint idea. After a while > the mantra will also just go on it's own so no concentration required. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MMY has always said, we teach knowledge of the infinite, not infinite > knowledge. The TMO, if it wanted to be in the job of teaching > infinite knowledge, could certainly get into a long and involved > discussion of mantras, but that is not what an ignorant world needs. > > People need access to infinite awareness, and for that, all they need > to know is the meaningless sound assigned to them during TM > initiation, and how to use that sound. There is no coverup involved > at all here. The cable guy who comes to your house to hook you up > could talk about all sorts of technical details to his non-tech > client, which would only be baffling and annoying to the client, or > the installer could use his brain, exercise common sense, and just do > the hook-up and let the client enjoy. > > You don't realize that the price increase and other measures are > intended to slow down the growth of the movement. Sounds ridiculous, > but it's a policy that MMY announced a long time ago: > > http://geocities.com/bbrigante/retards.html#light > > But now, it does not matter what happens on the level of individuals > learning TM. MMY is having pundits bring the influence of the gods > onto earth, an influence much more powerful than that of a few humans > doing TM. Also under the name of "Towers of Invincibility" > Shivalingams are also being constructed around the world, which will > bring the auspicious Shiva influence on earth. > > It's frustrating to see the progress by fits and starts of the TMO, > but it was only necessary for MMY to light a few candles in the West, > preparing the way for a restoration of Vedic culture in India: > > In his press conference of 13Apr2005 at mou.org, Maharishi said > that "As Indian national consciousness rises in coherence -- which is > the basis of invincibility for the nation then world consciousness > will rise in coherence which is the basis of permanent world > peace...One sun rises, but its innumerable rays spread light > everywhere...So it's natural for the influence of coherence to spread > from India to the whole world." In the mou.org Press Conference 26 > June 2002, Maharishi said: "India is the only country which can > assume a parental role for every country of the world with this > knowledge of the Veda, with this total knowledge of Natural Law, the > Will of God. And everything is possible under the protective nature > of the Will of God, invincible God." > > > Bob Brigante > http://geocities.com/bbrigante Spot on Brigante. As usual. Thanks ! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
I'll keep the basic TM technique and forget the rest,thanks Bob. Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" > wrote: > > > > > > Okay Bob,if that's the case why not one mantra for everyone? > > > > And don't give me the answer that a proper thought needs to be > > selected for each individual as per Science of Being and art of > > living from p50 on. > > > > As a technique,TM works briliantly for me,but I think the mantra > > coverup was a joke,and now the TMO is a bigger joke! > > > > Why not just come out and tell people, look your mantra is for this > > energy,will produce this result,and is the sacred sound of a deity > > in Hinduism. > > > > Drop the price,the World Government,and all the bullshit,and be > > transparent. > > > > Namaste, > > > > Billy > > > > > > The fact that TM mantras are meaningless sounds in the practice of TM > does not mean that different mantras cannot be assigned depending on > age and gender (the only two factors which are used in assigning > initial TM mantras). > > Since people of different ages are obviously different, and gender is > also an obvious source of personality difference, it's not difficult > to see that different mantras are appropriate for different groups. > > MMY has always said, we teach knowledge of the infinite, not infinite > knowledge. The TMO, if it wanted to be in the job of teaching > infinite knowledge, could certainly get into a long and involved > discussion of mantras, but that is not what an ignorant world needs. > > People need access to infinite awareness, and for that, all they need > to know is the meaningless sound assigned to them during TM > initiation, and how to use that sound. There is no coverup involved > at all here. The cable guy who comes to your house to hook you up > could talk about all sorts of technical details to his non-tech > client, which would only be baffling and annoying to the client, or > the installer could use his brain, exercise common sense, and just do > the hook-up and let the client enjoy. > > You don't realize that the price increase and other measures are > intended to slow down the growth of the movement. Sounds ridiculous, > but it's a policy that MMY announced a long time ago: > > http://geocities.com/bbrigante/retards.html#light > > But now, it does not matter what happens on the level of individuals > learning TM. MMY is having pundits bring the influence of the gods > onto earth, an influence much more powerful than that of a few humans > doing TM. Also under the name of "Towers of Invincibility" > Shivalingams are also being constructed around the world, which will > bring the auspicious Shiva influence on earth. > > It's frustrating to see the progress by fits and starts of the TMO, > but it was only necessary for MMY to light a few candles in the West, > preparing the way for a restoration of Vedic culture in India: > > In his press conference of 13Apr2005 at mou.org, Maharishi said > that "As Indian national consciousness rises in coherence -- which is > the basis of invincibility for the nation then world consciousness > will rise in coherence which is the basis of permanent world > peace...One sun rises, but its innumerable rays spread light > everywhere...So it's natural for the influence of coherence to spread > from India to the whole world." In the mou.org Press Conference 26 > June 2002, Maharishi said: "India is the only country which can > assume a parental role for every country of the world with this > knowledge of the Veda, with this total knowledge of Natural Law, the > Will of God. And everything is possible under the protective nature > of the Will of God, invincible God." > > > Bob Brigante > http://geocities.com/bbrigante > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" > > > > wrote: > > > You will find a > > > > few of the 'meaningless sounds' used by TM > > > > > > * > > > > > > The meaningless sounds used in TM are indeed meaningless sounds > > because > > > that is the proper use of the mantra in TM. If a thought of > > meaning > > > about the mantra or any other thought comes up, we just quietly > go > > back > > > to the mantra. > > > > > > Whether somebody assigns meanings to the TM mantras outside of > the > > > practice of TM has no effect on the proper practice of TM, which > > is to > > > always just go with the sound value of the mantra, and be neutral > > to > > > meaning or any other thought. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
I really hope that what you are saying is true.I'm not questioning your sincerity. I just don't trust the TMO! Something is going on,I have no doubt as I'm having brilliant meditations lately,transcending on a very regular basis. Thanks Bob, Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" > wrote: > > > > > > Okay Bob,if that's the case why not one mantra for everyone? > > > > And don't give me the answer that a proper thought needs to be > > selected for each individual as per Science of Being and art of > > living from p50 on. > > > > As a technique,TM works briliantly for me,but I think the mantra > > coverup was a joke,and now the TMO is a bigger joke! > > > > Why not just come out and tell people, look your mantra is for this > > energy,will produce this result,and is the sacred sound of a deity > > in Hinduism. > > > > Drop the price,the World Government,and all the bullshit,and be > > transparent. > > > > Namaste, > > > > Billy > > > > > > The fact that TM mantras are meaningless sounds in the practice of TM > does not mean that different mantras cannot be assigned depending on > age and gender (the only two factors which are used in assigning > initial TM mantras). > > Since people of different ages are obviously different, and gender is > also an obvious source of personality difference, it's not difficult > to see that different mantras are appropriate for different groups. > > MMY has always said, we teach knowledge of the infinite, not infinite > knowledge. The TMO, if it wanted to be in the job of teaching > infinite knowledge, could certainly get into a long and involved > discussion of mantras, but that is not what an ignorant world needs. > > People need access to infinite awareness, and for that, all they need > to know is the meaningless sound assigned to them during TM > initiation, and how to use that sound. There is no coverup involved > at all here. The cable guy who comes to your house to hook you up > could talk about all sorts of technical details to his non-tech > client, which would only be baffling and annoying to the client, or > the installer could use his brain, exercise common sense, and just do > the hook-up and let the client enjoy. > > You don't realize that the price increase and other measures are > intended to slow down the growth of the movement. Sounds ridiculous, > but it's a policy that MMY announced a long time ago: > > http://geocities.com/bbrigante/retards.html#light > > But now, it does not matter what happens on the level of individuals > learning TM. MMY is having pundits bring the influence of the gods > onto earth, an influence much more powerful than that of a few humans > doing TM. Also under the name of "Towers of Invincibility" > Shivalingams are also being constructed around the world, which will > bring the auspicious Shiva influence on earth. > > It's frustrating to see the progress by fits and starts of the TMO, > but it was only necessary for MMY to light a few candles in the West, > preparing the way for a restoration of Vedic culture in India: > > In his press conference of 13Apr2005 at mou.org, Maharishi said > that "As Indian national consciousness rises in coherence -- which is > the basis of invincibility for the nation then world consciousness > will rise in coherence which is the basis of permanent world > peace...One sun rises, but its innumerable rays spread light > everywhere...So it's natural for the influence of coherence to spread > from India to the whole world." In the mou.org Press Conference 26 > June 2002, Maharishi said: "India is the only country which can > assume a parental role for every country of the world with this > knowledge of the Veda, with this total knowledge of Natural Law, the > Will of God. And everything is possible under the protective nature > of the Will of God, invincible God." > > > Bob Brigante > http://geocities.com/bbrigante > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" > > > > wrote: > > > You will find a > > > > few of the 'meaningless sounds' used by TM > > > > > > * > > > > > > The meaningless sounds used in TM are indeed meaningless sounds > > because > > > that is the proper use of the mantra in TM. If a thought of > > meaning > > > about the mantra or any other thought comes up, we just quietly > go > > back > > > to the mantra. > > > > > > Whether somebody assigns meanings to the TM mantras outside of > the > > > practice of TM has no effect on the proper practice of TM, which > > is to > > > always just go with the sound value of the mantra, and be neutral > > to > > > meaning or any other thought. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Okay Bob,if that's the case why not one mantra for everyone? > > And don't give me the answer that a proper thought needs to be > selected for each individual as per Science of Being and art of > living from p50 on. > > As a technique,TM works briliantly for me,but I think the mantra > coverup was a joke,and now the TMO is a bigger joke! > > Why not just come out and tell people, look your mantra is for this > energy,will produce this result,and is the sacred sound of a deity > in Hinduism. > > Drop the price,the World Government,and all the bullshit,and be > transparent. > > Namaste, > > Billy > The fact that TM mantras are meaningless sounds in the practice of TM does not mean that different mantras cannot be assigned depending on age and gender (the only two factors which are used in assigning initial TM mantras). Since people of different ages are obviously different, and gender is also an obvious source of personality difference, it's not difficult to see that different mantras are appropriate for different groups. MMY has always said, we teach knowledge of the infinite, not infinite knowledge. The TMO, if it wanted to be in the job of teaching infinite knowledge, could certainly get into a long and involved discussion of mantras, but that is not what an ignorant world needs. People need access to infinite awareness, and for that, all they need to know is the meaningless sound assigned to them during TM initiation, and how to use that sound. There is no coverup involved at all here. The cable guy who comes to your house to hook you up could talk about all sorts of technical details to his non-tech client, which would only be baffling and annoying to the client, or the installer could use his brain, exercise common sense, and just do the hook-up and let the client enjoy. You don't realize that the price increase and other measures are intended to slow down the growth of the movement. Sounds ridiculous, but it's a policy that MMY announced a long time ago: http://geocities.com/bbrigante/retards.html#light But now, it does not matter what happens on the level of individuals learning TM. MMY is having pundits bring the influence of the gods onto earth, an influence much more powerful than that of a few humans doing TM. Also under the name of "Towers of Invincibility" Shivalingams are also being constructed around the world, which will bring the auspicious Shiva influence on earth. It's frustrating to see the progress by fits and starts of the TMO, but it was only necessary for MMY to light a few candles in the West, preparing the way for a restoration of Vedic culture in India: In his press conference of 13Apr2005 at mou.org, Maharishi said that "As Indian national consciousness rises in coherence -- which is the basis of invincibility for the nation then world consciousness will rise in coherence which is the basis of permanent world peace...One sun rises, but its innumerable rays spread light everywhere...So it's natural for the influence of coherence to spread from India to the whole world." In the mou.org Press Conference 26 June 2002, Maharishi said: "India is the only country which can assume a parental role for every country of the world with this knowledge of the Veda, with this total knowledge of Natural Law, the Will of God. And everything is possible under the protective nature of the Will of God, invincible God." Bob Brigante http://geocities.com/bbrigante > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" > > wrote: > > You will find a > > > few of the 'meaningless sounds' used by TM > > > > * > > > > The meaningless sounds used in TM are indeed meaningless sounds > because > > that is the proper use of the mantra in TM. If a thought of > meaning > > about the mantra or any other thought comes up, we just quietly go > back > > to the mantra. > > > > Whether somebody assigns meanings to the TM mantras outside of the > > practice of TM has no effect on the proper practice of TM, which > is to > > always just go with the sound value of the mantra, and be neutral > to > > meaning or any other thought. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Okay Bob,if that's the case why not one mantra for everyone? And don't give me the answer that a proper thought needs to be selected for each individual as per Science of Being and art of living from p50 on. As a technique,TM works briliantly for me,but I think the mantra coverup was a joke,and now the TMO is a bigger joke! Why not just come out and tell people, look your mantra is for this energy,will produce this result,and is the sacred sound of a deity in Hinduism. Drop the price,the World Government,and all the bullshit,and be transparent. Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" > wrote: > You will find a > > few of the 'meaningless sounds' used by TM > > * > > The meaningless sounds used in TM are indeed meaningless sounds because > that is the proper use of the mantra in TM. If a thought of meaning > about the mantra or any other thought comes up, we just quietly go back > to the mantra. > > Whether somebody assigns meanings to the TM mantras outside of the > practice of TM has no effect on the proper practice of TM, which is to > always just go with the sound value of the mantra, and be neutral to > meaning or any other thought. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You will find a > few of the 'meaningless sounds' used by TM * The meaningless sounds used in TM are indeed meaningless sounds because that is the proper use of the mantra in TM. If a thought of meaning about the mantra or any other thought comes up, we just quietly go back to the mantra. Whether somebody assigns meanings to the TM mantras outside of the practice of TM has no effect on the proper practice of TM, which is to always just go with the sound value of the mantra, and be neutral to meaning or any other thought.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
On Oct 22, 2007, at 5:46 PM, bob_brigante wrote: > What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway? > > > > Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one > > initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras > > effective if you find them in a book? > > > > Why all the secrecy about bija mantras? > > > *** The thing about bija mantras (which are certainly not secret, being listed in several Vedic texts) needing their proper use to be taught by a teacher is because they are powerful. The ancient text Srimad Devi Bhagavatam (this is different from the Srimad Bhagavatam) says, after listing the bija mantras used in TM, that results will not be good for those who try to learn TM on their own (I can't cite the page, it's been too long since I read the SDB): http://tinyurl.com/e4q48 This is on the Spiritual Texts online archive for free now: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/index.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
According to this guy Gabriel,who has Swami Muktananda in his lineage, the repetition of a Biijamantra linked to a particular deity will develop in a person the qualities and attributes embodied by that very deity.They are all doubtless auspicious and will grant the best fruits to you provided that you repeat them with respect and good pronunciation. I think that the bija mantras this guy has on his site with the 'ng' endings are the most powerful Tantric Bija mantras. You will find a few of the 'meaningless sounds' used by TM amongst them also Richard! http://www.sanskrit- sanscrito.com.ar/english/sanskrit_sacredmantras/sacredmantras1.html If you visit the following website - http://www.tantrananda.com/ You can purchase cds with bija mantras very similar to Gabriels except they end in 'm' rather than 'ng' for example 'Shring'for Lakshmi becomes 'Shrim' where the 'rim' part is pronounced the same as the 'rim' of a wheel. I think,or in my opinion these are the 2nd most powerful set of bija mantras. Finally if you listen to some of Thomas Ashley Farrand's cds you will get the 3rd most powerful set of bija mantras- for example;- Eim,Shreem,Hreem,Kreem,Kleem etc If you experiment you will find that the first set ala Gabriel will take you much deeper in meditation than the 2nd set,and the 2nd set will take you many times deeper in meditation than the 3rd set. I think through experimentation on early TM Guinea pigs MMY discovered this. For example the age group 24 to 35 got a Lakshmi Bija. The younger ones got the more powerful version 'Shring,' and the rest were penalized for being older and got 'shrim' BTW I have tried meditating with both,and have transcended on both,but definately in my experience 'shring' works faster,and is much more powerful. Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway? > > > > > > Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one > > > initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras > > > effective if you find them in a book? > > > > > > Why all the secrecy about bija mantras? > > > > > > > *** > > The thing about bija mantras (which are certainly not secret, being > listed in several Vedic texts) needing their proper use to be taught > by a teacher is because they are powerful. The ancient text Srimad > Devi Bhagavatam (this is different from the Srimad Bhagavatam) says, > after listing the bija mantras used in TM, that results will not be > good for those who try to learn TM on their own (I can't cite the > page, it's been too long since I read the SDB): > > > http://tinyurl.com/e4q48 > > "Bija" means "seed" -- these are powerful mantras, which when planted > properly, result in the growth of consciousness in the initiate, so > their proper use needs to be guided by a teacher, just as you would > check with an expert gardener if you had some seeds you wanted to > plant and enjoy optimal growth of the plant. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
> What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway? > > > > Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one > > initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras > > effective if you find them in a book? > > > > Why all the secrecy about bija mantras? > > > *** The thing about bija mantras (which are certainly not secret, being listed in several Vedic texts) needing their proper use to be taught by a teacher is because they are powerful. The ancient text Srimad Devi Bhagavatam (this is different from the Srimad Bhagavatam) says, after listing the bija mantras used in TM, that results will not be good for those who try to learn TM on their own (I can't cite the page, it's been too long since I read the SDB): http://tinyurl.com/e4q48 "Bija" means "seed" -- these are powerful mantras, which when planted properly, result in the growth of consciousness in the initiate, so their proper use needs to be guided by a teacher, just as you would check with an expert gardener if you had some seeds you wanted to plant and enjoy optimal growth of the plant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The question is, where do the TM bija mantras come from? According to Swami Yogananda from the vibrations of the spinal chakras which, incidentally also make up the Sanskrit (Devanagari) alphabet. Fifty petals or vibratory sounds in the lower 6 chakras and 50X20 in the seventh or the 1000 petaled lotus/Sahasrara. > From Swami Brahmanand Saraswati? From a book? Did the > Marshy just make up some non-sense gibberish and then > call them bijas? If he got them from his teacher, the > question becomes, where did the Marshy's teacher get > the bija mantras? Was Brahmmanand a tantric? Good questions, I've heard it hear they are found in the Upanishads. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01239.htm > What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway? A vibratory sound that has its source in the spinal chakras and helps to form the Sanskrit Alphabet, (simplified). > Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one > initiation from a genuine tantric guru? No, since MMY is not a tantric guru and the mantras appear to work! We do know however TM is not a Diksha Initiation since this initiation requires the student to be advanced enough to receive actual God communion from his enlightened (Sat-guru) Guru. MMY is not a personal Guru. A chela not ready for Diksha would injure himself from the power ful vibrations of God Consciousness hence he would NOT be Initiated! > Are bija mantras > effective if you find them in a book? Probably. > Why all the secrecy about bija mantras? I don't know why! According to whoeverpostedthis they're in the Upanishads!?! http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01239.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway? > > Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one > initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras > effective if you find them in a book? > > Why all the secrecy about bija mantras? > I think by getting an initiation from from a TM Teacher,or from genuine tantric guru - if you can find one, you are removing all the uncertainty. I transcended for the first time 3 days after learning,so for me TM is a sure thing. I don't agree with the price for learning nowadays,and I think the TMO is weird,but for me the technique is still brilliant. I regularly chant longer mantras for different purposes in life,but always do my twice daily 20mins of TM. Tantrics tend to chant mantras internally.All mantras can be used without initiation,but they are more effective when given by a realised guru or with his blessing. Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > biosoundbill wrote: > > After all is said and done, I can't complain about > > the way I was taught to meditate in TM, or even about > > the mantra I got, meaningless or otherwise. > > > But I didn't say that your mantra was "meaningless". > According to several informants here, you got the nick > name of a Hindu demi-God to repeat in your meditation. > The two Barry's seem to agree with this and so does Vaj > the Nath. Mr. Manning even taught this when he was a TM > teacher. But apparently Judy doesn't agree with this. > > > It works for me, and even though the organization that > > propagates TM has become ultra commercial, the technique > > still holds good. > > > > So I won't distrust the method or the mantra I got. > > It came at the right time in my life, saved my life, > > and continues to work in my life. What more can I say, > > except I don't want an advanced technique, the basic one > > is working fine! > > > You don't get any more mantras in the advanced technique, > according to Judy. You get only one mantra in TM - the > other add-on phrases are just plain Sanskrit words like, > Sri, Namah, etc. > > The question is, where do the TM bija mantras come from? > From Swami Brahmanand Saraswati? From a book? Did the > Marshy just make up some non-sense gibberish and then > call them bijas? If he got them from his teacher, the > question becomes, where did the Marshy's teacher get > the bija mantras? Was Brahmmanand a tantric? > > What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway? > > Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one > initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras > effective if you find them in a book? > > Why all the secrecy about bija mantras? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
biosoundbill wrote: > After all is said and done, I can't complain about > the way I was taught to meditate in TM, or even about > the mantra I got, meaningless or otherwise. > But I didn't say that your mantra was "meaningless". According to several informants here, you got the nick name of a Hindu demi-God to repeat in your meditation. The two Barry's seem to agree with this and so does Vaj the Nath. Mr. Manning even taught this when he was a TM teacher. But apparently Judy doesn't agree with this. > It works for me, and even though the organization that > propagates TM has become ultra commercial, the technique > still holds good. > > So I won't distrust the method or the mantra I got. > It came at the right time in my life, saved my life, > and continues to work in my life. What more can I say, > except I don't want an advanced technique, the basic one > is working fine! > You don't get any more mantras in the advanced technique, according to Judy. You get only one mantra in TM - the other add-on phrases are just plain Sanskrit words like, Sri, Namah, etc. The question is, where do the TM bija mantras come from? >From Swami Brahmanand Saraswati? From a book? Did the Marshy just make up some non-sense gibberish and then call them bijas? If he got them from his teacher, the question becomes, where did the Marshy's teacher get the bija mantras? Was Brahmmanand a tantric? What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway? Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras effective if you find them in a book? Why all the secrecy about bija mantras?
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > For me, no effort or will whatsoever is involved. > > > The whole thing is automatic, completely > > > spontaneous. *Samyama* involves effort, but not > > > dhyan. > > > > TM is Samyama! Effortless Dharana (poorly translated as > > concentration), leading to Dhyana (sublime spontaneous contemplation > > on the Divine), and finally Samadhi (actual merging into oneness with > > the object of contemplation, pure consciousness or the Divine). > > > > So what happens down the road Judy (advanced techniques), when the > > mantra is instructed to be thought at a certain 'chakra' location? Is > > that using effort? > > Everything about TM becomes automatic after a short practise. > * Right. TM is a natural technique -- natural meaning conducted by nature, so all you have to do make yourself available for a remake by nature. Effort is opposed to enjoyment, so to gain the concentrated happiness that is bliss consciousness, effort is not wanted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
After all is said and done, I can't complain about the way I was taught to meditate in TM, or even about the mantra I got, meaningless or otherwise. It works for me, and even though the organization that propagates TM has become ultra commercial, the technique still holds good. So I won't distrust the method or the mantra I got. It came at the right time in my life, saved my life, and continues to work in my life. What more can I say, except I don't want an advanced technique, the basic one is working fine! Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BillyG wrote: > > I can see the clueless nitwit now, with his Sony laptop > > under the bridge posting to FFL using wireless satellite > > (or stealing the signal from others). :-) > > > You idiot, Murphy - I have an Apple MacBook Pro! The connection > is free - no bridges. But I am a nitwit to ask where the Marshy > got the TM bija mantras. :-) > > > > Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > > --anyone who doesn't know that "bija mantras" are > > > > used in TM > > > > > > > So, Sal, where do you think the TM bija mantras come from? > > > > > > > is a clueless nitwit who lives under a bridge. > > > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > > If you are so smart, why don't tell us the name of the > > > > tantric guru that taught them to the Marshy. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
BillyG wrote: > I can see the clueless nitwit now, with his Sony laptop > under the bridge posting to FFL using wireless satellite > (or stealing the signal from others). :-) > You idiot, Murphy - I have an Apple MacBook Pro! The connection is free - no bridges. But I am a nitwit to ask where the Marshy got the TM bija mantras. :-) > > Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > --anyone who doesn't know that "bija mantras" are > > > used in TM > > > > > So, Sal, where do you think the TM bija mantras come from? > > > > > is a clueless nitwit who lives under a bridge. > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > If you are so smart, why don't tell us the name of the > > > tantric guru that taught them to the Marshy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sal Sunshine wrote: > > --anyone who doesn't know that "bija mantras" are > > used in TM > > > So, Sal, where do you think the TM bija mantras come from? > > > is a clueless nitwit who lives under a bridge. > > > > If you are so smart, why don't tell us the name of the > > tantric guru that taught them to the Marshy. I can see the clueless nitwit now, with his Sony laptop under the bridge posting to FFL using wireless satellite (or stealing the signal from others). :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Vaj wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2007, at 11:24 PM, BillyG. wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Oct 21, 2007, at 9:43 PM, BillyG. wrote: >> > >> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: >> > > > >> > > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or >> > > > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not >> > > > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free >> > > state. >> > > > It is however an important sign that practice is ready to go to >> > > > another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and the >> "gap" >> > > > becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, the >> longest >> > > > recorded by their "research" in just a couple of minutes. But >> for a >> > > > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several >> > > > hours or much longer, at will. So a long or short mantra MAY >> make a >> > > > little difference, one or two minutes compared to three or >> four, but >> > > > in the big picture it's insignificant IME. >> > > >> > > Right on Vaj, I agree! Also, I haven't heard even one credible >> > > account of kundalini rising in/from the TM group, probably because >> > > most aren't advanced enough,not that it wouldn't happen some day but >> > > "functioning from the home of all the laws of nature", GMAB!! >> > >> > >> > Sorry to burst your bubble, but I know numerous people who've >> > awakened at the prana-kundalini level. >> >> That and a buck wouldn't get you a cup of coffee at starbucks, so >> let's see, that means YOU haven't RIGHT! Where's the beef, Amigo! > > > Some people will have carried an awakening from a previous life, so > it's impossible to tell those who were previously awakened or if they > awakened from their practice in this life without investigating. But > usually if you ask closely, the person can tell you events throughout > childhood that indicated they carried their awakening from a prior > existence. This is so true. In fact I was even more mystified by people who after 20-30 years of practicing meditation claimed they had yet to experience transcending since so many I knew had experienced it with the first TM instruction and even other techniques before that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
biosoundbill wrote: > In the text below you appear to be admitting that > bija mantras are used in TM! > > Why the sudden change of mind,are you a little > confused? > No, I am not confused, but it would seem that several of the informants here are confused, or at least ill-informed, and are attempting to confuse me. The three tantric experts, the two Barry's and Vaj the Nath, both seemed to want to discredit the notion that Marshy learned the TM bija mantras from Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Vaj, in his zeal to discredit Marshy, seemed to imply that there was no connection between Marshy and the Sri Vidya sect at all. Vaj seemed to imply that Shankara never visited Kashmir and had nothing to do with the Trika system. Apparently none of the pundits here seem to be aware of the source of the TM bija mantras. This seems to be somewhat outrageous! Can you imagine adults spouting nonsense syllables for years and years, and recruiting others to spout them too, and yet never even knowing the source of the gibberish they spout? Apparently this is the case. So, the question remains: Where, exactly, did the Marshy get the bija mantras. According to Mr. Bharat2, you can't get real bija mantras from a book, you must be getting initiated by a tantric guru. Is there any evidence that Marshy was initiated by a tantric guru and recieved a bucketload of bijas to pass out? None of the informants wants to be honest about this - why I don't know. What's the big secret? And why are the TMers and ex-TMers always wanting to be so secretive? If the TM bija mantras are the nicknames of the Hindu demi-Gods, that Marshy read in a book, why not just be honest and say so? Richard J. Williams wrote: > > The TM tradition probably originated with the Nath > > alchemists of medieval India, the so-called "Eighty-four > > Mahasiddhas" and with Matsyendranath, the inventor of > > Hatha Yoga. This tradition was taken to Kashmir where > > it became the Trika system and then later to South > > Asia to become the Sri Vidya tradition of Shankara. > > > > According to what I've read, Guru Dev's teacher was Swami > > Krishanand Saraswati of Sringeri. If so, that means that > > Guru Dev was, like his teacher, a student of the Sri Vidya, > > which was established by Shankara at Sringeri. Apparently > > there are three TM bija mantras inscribed on the Sri > > Chakra, which is ensconced at the Sringeri temple. > > > > It is a fact that all the Saraswati Dasanamis worship > > the Sri Vidya. > > > > It is also a fact that the Sri Chakra is ensconced on the > > mandir at Dwarka and at the Kanchi Mathas. It is also a > > fact that all the Adwaita Sannyasins claim that Adi Shankara > > established four mathas as seats of learning and for the > > worship of Sri Vidya. In addition, all the Shankaracharyas > > agree that Shankara composed the Soundaryalahari, with the > > TM bija mantras included among the thirteeen other bija > > mantras. > > > > According to the Shankaracharya of Sringeri, the Adi > > Shankara placed the Sri Chakra, symbol of Tripurasundari, > > with the TM mantras inscribed thereon, at each of the seats > > of learning - Dwarka, Puri, Sringeri, Kanchi and at Jyotirmath. > > The mantras of TM are DIRECTLY related to Sri Vidya. At least > > three TM bija mantras appear inscribed on the Sri Chakra. > > > > According to Swami Rama, Guru Dev was fond of the Sri Chakra > > and used one in his puja. So, if the Sri Chakra has the TM > > mantras written on it, and Shankara wrote the Soundaryalahari, > > with the thirteen bija mantras, three of which are used in > > the practice of TM, we can assume that the TM bija mantras > > used by MMY are derived from the Tantric Tradition of Shankara > > as practiced in Kerala State. > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Sal Sunshine wrote: > --anyone who doesn't know that "bija mantras" are > used in TM > So, Sal, where do you think the TM bija mantras come from? > is a clueless nitwit who lives under a bridge. > > If you are so smart, why don't tell us the name of the > tantric guru that taught them to the Marshy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
biosoundbill wrote: > > Why the sudden change of mind,are you a little confused? > > jstein wrote: > Billy...Richard lives under a bridge. > Stop the lying, Judy. You know perfectly well that I live at Radiance, the TM Ideal Village, just outside Austin, Texas. Why you'd want to spread falsehoods like this is beyond me. If you want to be a liar, fine, but do you have to be a hypocrite as well?
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > For me, no effort or will whatsoever is involved. > > The whole thing is automatic, completely > > spontaneous. *Samyama* involves effort, but not > > dhyan. > > TM is Samyama! Effortless Dharana (poorly translated as > concentration), leading to Dhyana (sublime spontaneous contemplation > on the Divine), and finally Samadhi (actual merging into oneness with > the object of contemplation, pure consciousness or the Divine). > > So what happens down the road Judy (advanced techniques), when the > mantra is instructed to be thought at a certain 'chakra' location? Is > that using effort? Everything about TM becomes automatic after a short practise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there any evidence of this? Folks have measured the length of sojourn in TC? Wouldn't that also depend on the individual, on length of practice and predisposition, to name just a few of the possible variables? a Well, tiivra-saMvegaanaam aasannaH. (I 21) But, mRdu-madhyaadhimaatratvaat tato 'pi visheSaH! (I 22)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:34 AM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For me, no effort or will whatsoever is involved. > The whole thing is automatic, completely > spontaneous. *Samyama* involves effort, but not > dhyan. TM is Samyama! Effortless Dharana (poorly translated as concentration), leading to Dhyana (sublime spontaneous contemplation on the Divine), and finally Samadhi (actual merging into oneness with the object of contemplation, pure consciousness or the Divine). So what happens down the road Judy (advanced techniques), when the mantra is instructed to be thought at a certain 'chakra' location? Is that using effort? The Horror!
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's also not unusual for people to have imbalanced awakenings, esp. > people working indiscriminately with sexual practices. This is also > somewhat common among TMSP practitioners. It is important to have > guidance in such a path. Whether returning shakti to bindu would > >>make > them "Christs" I can't say--never met the guy. Christ wasn't a 'guy', Christ was a title given to Jesus as the 'annointed one' or one who had become a Christ. We all have the potential to become Christs, once we realize the oversoul of the Universe or that Purusha which is immanent IN creation as our own souls. Returning shakti (Kriya) to bindu (Jnana) is nicely put, also, yes the need for a Sat-Guru (guidance)becomes necessary in the final stages of enlightenment where the radiant form of the Master/Guru appears in the subtle astral and causal worlds to guide the chela to the Almightyor so I've heard!
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For me, no effort or will whatsoever is involved. > The whole thing is automatic, completely > spontaneous. *Samyama* involves effort, but not > dhyan. TM is Samyama! Effortless Dharana (poorly translated as concentration), leading to Dhyana (sublime spontaneous contemplation on the Divine), and finally Samadhi (actual merging into oneness with the object of contemplation, pure consciousness or the Divine). So what happens down the road Judy (advanced techniques), when the mantra is instructed to be thought at a certain 'chakra' location? Is that using effort?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:10 AM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some people will have carried an awakening from a previous life, so > it's impossible to tell those who were previously awakened or if they > awakened from their practice in this life without investigating. But > usually if you ask closely, the person can tell you events throughout > childhood that indicated they carried their awakening from a prior > existence. Let's just put it this way Vaj, most likely many have had glimpses or partial awakening temporarily in just about any discipline, but actual conscious transcending thru all 6 chakras and finally to Sahasrara would make them Christs. It's also not unusual for people to have imbalanced awakenings, esp. people working indiscriminately with sexual practices. This is also somewhat common among TMSP practitioners. It is important to have guidance in such a path. Whether returning shakti to bindu would make them "Christs" I can't say--never met the guy. There are very few who have mastered kundalini that far living today, IMO, and based on the paltry experiences I've heard reported and the fact that MMY doesn't even talk about kundalini (anymore) leads me to believe this is an experience that is far off for the average Yoga practitioner today, (in whatever discipline). Are there a few precocious individuals here and there? sure, maybe MMY's nephew. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some people will have carried an awakening from a previous life, so > it's impossible to tell those who were previously awakened or if they > awakened from their practice in this life without investigating. But > usually if you ask closely, the person can tell you events throughout > childhood that indicated they carried their awakening from a prior > existence. Let's just put it this way Vaj, most likely many have had glimpses or partial awakening temporarily in just about any discipline, but actual conscious transcending thru all 6 chakras and finally to Sahasrara would make them Christs. There are very few who have mastered kundalini that far living today, IMO, and based on the paltry experiences I've heard reported and the fact that MMY doesn't even talk about kundalini (anymore) leads me to believe this is an experience that is far off for the average Yoga practitioner today, (in whatever discipline). Are there a few precocious individuals here and there? sure, maybe MMY's nephew.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
On Oct 21, 2007, at 11:24 PM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 21, 2007, at 9:43 PM, BillyG. wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or > > > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not > > > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free > > state. > > > It is however an important sign that practice is ready to go to > > > another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and the "gap" > > > becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, the longest > > > recorded by their "research" in just a couple of minutes. But for a > > > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several > > > hours or much longer, at will. So a long or short mantra MAY make a > > > little difference, one or two minutes compared to three or four, but > > > in the big picture it's insignificant IME. > > > > Right on Vaj, I agree! Also, I haven't heard even one credible > > account of kundalini rising in/from the TM group, probably because > > most aren't advanced enough,not that it wouldn't happen some day but > > "functioning from the home of all the laws of nature", GMAB!! > > > Sorry to burst your bubble, but I know numerous people who've > awakened at the prana-kundalini level. That and a buck wouldn't get you a cup of coffee at starbucks, so let's see, that means YOU haven't RIGHT! Where's the beef, Amigo! Some people will have carried an awakening from a previous life, so it's impossible to tell those who were previously awakened or if they awakened from their practice in this life without investigating. But usually if you ask closely, the person can tell you events throughout childhood that indicated they carried their awakening from a prior existence.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So then, what's the difference? the transcendence is the transcendent, right? If it had a sign in it that said, "I'm a better transcendent than the one you get with iddy-biddy mantras" then that wouldn't be the transcendent, would it? a Transcendence with advanced techniques last for a longer period of time during meditation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bhairitu, > > I meant to ask you as you meditate with a longer mantra > effortlessly,are you able to let go completely as in TM where the > bija can become very faint,unclear, and barely recognizable.Are you > able to allow a longer mantra to become very faint,unclear, and > barely recognizable also? > > From my preception it seems that a longer mantra would,unlike TM, > require a degree of concentration! > > Namaste, > > Billy Advanced techiques are sounds also. The same thing happens with those as with the one you receive at your first initiation. No difference only more pleasant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 21, 2007, at 9:43 PM, BillyG. wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or > > > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not > > > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free > > state. > > > It is however an important sign that practice is ready to go to > > > another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and the "gap" > > > becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, the longest > > > recorded by their "research" in just a couple of minutes. But for a > > > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several > > > hours or much longer, at will. So a long or short mantra MAY make a > > > little difference, one or two minutes compared to three or four, but > > > in the big picture it's insignificant IME. > > > > Right on Vaj, I agree! Also, I haven't heard even one credible > > account of kundalini rising in/from the TM group, probably because > > most aren't advanced enough,not that it wouldn't happen some day but > > "functioning from the home of all the laws of nature", GMAB!! > > > Sorry to burst your bubble, but I know numerous people who've > awakened at the prana-kundalini level. That and a buck wouldn't get you a cup of coffee at starbucks, so let's see, that means YOU haven't RIGHT! Where's the beef, Amigo!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Angela Mailander wrote: > Is there any evidence of this? Folks have measured the length of sojourn in > TC? Wouldn't that also depend on the individual, on length of practice and > predisposition, to name just a few of the possible variables? a > > Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: About > $4000. :) > And you stay in the transcendent longer. > > Angela Mailander wrote: > > So then, what's the difference? the transcendence is the transcendent, > right? If it had a sign in it that said, "I'm a better transcendent than the > one you get with iddy-biddy mantras" then that wouldn't be the transcendent, > would it? a > > > > Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > biosoundbill wrote: > > > Bhairitu, > > > > > > I meant to ask you as you meditate with a longer mantra > > > effortlessly,are you able to let go completely as in TM where the > > > bija can become very faint,unclear, and barely recognizable.Are you > > > able to allow a longer mantra to become very faint,unclear, and > > > barely recognizable also? > > > > > > >From my preception it seems that a longer mantra would,unlike TM, > > > require a degree of concentration! > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > Billy > > Yes the longer mantra will refine to a very faint idea. After a while > > the mantra will also just go on it's own so no concentration required. > > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
On Oct 21, 2007, at 10:03 PM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or > > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not > > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free > > state. It is however an important sign that practice is ready to > > go to another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and > > the "gap" becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, > > the longest recorded by their "research" in just a couple of > > minutes. > > More like 20-something minutes, actually. > > Oh, and it's real research. There's no need for > scare quotes. > > But for a > > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several > > hours or much longer, at will. > > Of course, if will is involved, Of course will IS involved, it's called an "effortless *effort*" Judy! Complete passivity in NOT TM!! "...innocently come back to the mantra" still involves attention, and drawing back the attention using the will effortlessly, without that personal effort there could be no Dharana or "concentration" or Samyama. Very good point and attention to subtle detail. What yogis call "the disease of effort" is not at all about "strain" or eye-brow knitting concentration, but merely attention on any object...or even merely the intent to sit, to return to your object when you lose it (even if based on smrti/mindfulness), etc. That's all "disease of effort", a natural part of any dualistic meditation method. Alambanas = effort.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
On Oct 21, 2007, at 9:43 PM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free state. > It is however an important sign that practice is ready to go to > another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and the "gap" > becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, the longest > recorded by their "research" in just a couple of minutes. But for a > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several > hours or much longer, at will. So a long or short mantra MAY make a > little difference, one or two minutes compared to three or four, but > in the big picture it's insignificant IME. Right on Vaj, I agree! Also, I haven't heard even one credible account of kundalini rising in/from the TM group, probably because most aren't advanced enough,not that it wouldn't happen some day but "functioning from the home of all the laws of nature", GMAB!! Sorry to burst your bubble, but I know numerous people who've awakened at the prana-kundalini level.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
On Oct 21, 2007, at 9:41 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free > state. It is however an important sign that practice is ready to > go to another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and > the "gap" becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, > the longest recorded by their "research" in just a couple of > minutes. More like 20-something minutes, actually. Oh, and it's real research. There's no need for scare quotes. But for a > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several > hours or much longer, at will. Of course, if will is involved, it isn't transcendental-consciousness-by-itself; it includes some element of waking consciousness. What TM researchers have been measuring is not this mixed state, but TC-by-itself, where the will cannot be exercised, by definition. You're misrepresenting what I said. The person wills to enter into samadhi for what ever amount of time before not during their session. Many TMers remain in the mixed state-- spontaneously, not by an effort of will--for most of the meditation period; it's sometimes referred to as "witnessing" one's meditation. Plus which, the principle of TM is cycling effortlessly back and forth between mantra, TC- by-itself, and thoughts, the point being to allow release of stress. Or so you've been lead to believe. Stress release is said to be what "kicks" one out of TC-by- itself. If one were to resist this "kick" by an effort of will in an attempt to repress thought, that would defeat the whole purpose. In any case, these are obviously very different approaches to meditation. Actually not, just better results IME.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or > > > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not > > > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free > > > state. It is however an important sign that practice is ready to > > > go to another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and > > > the "gap" becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, > > > the longest recorded by their "research" in just a couple of > > > minutes. > > > > More like 20-something minutes, actually. > > > > Oh, and it's real research. There's no need for > > scare quotes. > > > > But for a > > > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for > > > several hours or much longer, at will. > > > > Of course, if will is involved, > > Of course will IS involved, it's called an "effortless *effort*" > Judy! > > Complete passivity in NOT TM!! "...innocently come back to the > mantra" still involves attention, and drawing back the attention > using the will effortlessly, without that personal effort there > could be no Dharana or "concentration" or Samyama. For me, no effort or will whatsoever is involved. The whole thing is automatic, completely spontaneous. *Samyama* involves effort, but not dhyan. It appears our respective experiences of TM are different. I'm not going to argue with you about it. >smo[? > > and thoughts, the point being to > > allow release of stress. Stress release is > > said to be what "kicks" one out of TC-by- > > itself. If one were to resist this "kick" > > by an effort of will in an attempt to repress > > thought, that would defeat the whole purpose. > > Who mentioned repressing thought? I'm assuming that's what Vaj means. > "innocently *favor*(will)the mantra". That's out of context, Billy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or > > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not > > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free > > state. It is however an important sign that practice is ready to > > go to another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and > > the "gap" becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, > > the longest recorded by their "research" in just a couple of > > minutes. > > More like 20-something minutes, actually. > > Oh, and it's real research. There's no need for > scare quotes. > > But for a > > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several > > hours or much longer, at will. > > Of course, if will is involved, Of course will IS involved, it's called an "effortless *effort*" Judy! Complete passivity in NOT TM!! "...innocently come back to the mantra" still involves attention, and drawing back the attention using the will effortlessly, without that personal effort there could be no Dharana or "concentration" or Samyama. > it isn't > transcendental-consciousness-by-itself; TC by itself is Samadhi! > it > includes some element of waking consciousness. > What TM researchers have been measuring is not > this mixed state, but TC-by-itself, where the > will cannot be exercised, by definition. Vaj is talking about Dharana (concentration) leading to dhyana (fixity on the object of meditation i.e. pure consciousness) ending in Samadhi (knower, known and object of knowing all are one, you know that). > Many TMers remain in the mixed state-- > spontaneously, not by an effort of will--for > most of the meditation period; it's sometimes > referred to as "witnessing" one's meditation. A state of Samyama only known to the meditator, but if he is witnessing he is likely in the dhyana state (meditation state or fixity on pure consciousness, not yet merged into it). > Plus which, the principle of TM is cycling > effortlessly back and forth between mantra, TC- > by-itself, Judy, in order to get TC by itself you have to proceed thru the 6 spinal chakras, each chakra has a distinctive sound vibration which is basically the same for everyone, hardly anybody in TM has had these experiences and MMY doesn't even talk about them!! > and thoughts, the point being to > allow release of stress. Stress release is > said to be what "kicks" one out of TC-by- > itself. If one were to resist this "kick" > by an effort of will in an attempt to repress > thought, that would defeat the whole purpose. Who mentioned repressing thought?"innocently *favor*(will)the mantra". > In any case, these are obviously very different > approaches to meditation. It very well may not be effortless with what Vaj practices I don't know, MMY teaches an *effort-less effort*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free state. > It is however an important sign that practice is ready to go to > another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and the "gap" > becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, the longest > recorded by their "research" in just a couple of minutes. But for a > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several > hours or much longer, at will. So a long or short mantra MAY make a > little difference, one or two minutes compared to three or four, but > in the big picture it's insignificant IME. Right on Vaj, I agree! Also, I haven't heard even one credible account of kundalini rising in/from the TM group, probably because most aren't advanced enough,not that it wouldn't happen some day but "functioning from the home of all the laws of nature", GMAB!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free > state. It is however an important sign that practice is ready to > go to another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and > the "gap" becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, > the longest recorded by their "research" in just a couple of > minutes. More like 20-something minutes, actually. Oh, and it's real research. There's no need for scare quotes. But for a > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several > hours or much longer, at will. Of course, if will is involved, it isn't transcendental-consciousness-by-itself; it includes some element of waking consciousness. What TM researchers have been measuring is not this mixed state, but TC-by-itself, where the will cannot be exercised, by definition. Many TMers remain in the mixed state-- spontaneously, not by an effort of will--for most of the meditation period; it's sometimes referred to as "witnessing" one's meditation. Plus which, the principle of TM is cycling effortlessly back and forth between mantra, TC- by-itself, and thoughts, the point being to allow release of stress. Stress release is said to be what "kicks" one out of TC-by- itself. If one were to resist this "kick" by an effort of will in an attempt to repress thought, that would defeat the whole purpose. In any case, these are obviously very different approaches to meditation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free state. It is however an important sign that practice is ready to go to another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and the "gap" becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, the longest recorded by their "research" in just a couple of minutes. But for a yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several hours or much longer, at will. So a long or short mantra MAY make a little difference, one or two minutes compared to three or four, but in the big picture it's insignificant IME. On Oct 21, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: Is there any evidence of this? Folks have measured the length of sojourn in TC? Wouldn't that also depend on the individual, on length of practice and predisposition, to name just a few of the possible variables? a
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So then, what's the difference? the transcendence is the > transcendent, right? I think the point is that some are trying to say that what many TMers think is the transcdenant isn't really. I do not choose to weigh in on this subject; I'm just trying to clarify things, as I see them. If you believe what some have said of me, you should avoid any of my attempts at "clarification" like they were poison. > If it had a sign in it that said, "I'm a better transcendent > than the one you get with iddy-biddy mantras" then that > wouldn't be the transcendent, would it? Well, it would if you had been taught to *consider* that the transcendent, n'est-ce pas? I mean, *backtrack* a few steps to the subjective experience of "transcending." It's noticeable because it *is* transcendent; it goes beyond the boundaries or What You Knew Before. And that's a Good Thing, right? Who here on this forum, ferchrissakes, is going to argue that one should settle for What We Knew Before? So everyone transcends -- to some degree -- and to every single last one of them it is a transcendental experience. It took them so far beyond the boundaries of what they had previously conceived of *as* exper- ience that they had to consider the experience transcendental. I think I'm with you on this one. The transcendent is the transcendent, no matter how much others may protest that it's not *the* transcendent. What they perceive as *the* transcendent may *be*, for them. But not for others. They'd like us to believe that their definition of what the transcendent is *is*. They'd like to think that they rule, like Lester Burnham when he says so well in American Beauty, "I rule." But they don't. Each of us is free to determine just what transcendence is to *us*. And that's a form of transcendence in itself.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Is there any evidence of this? Folks have measured the length of sojourn in TC? Wouldn't that also depend on the individual, on length of practice and predisposition, to name just a few of the possible variables? a Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: About $4000. :) And you stay in the transcendent longer. Angela Mailander wrote: > So then, what's the difference? the transcendence is the transcendent, > right? If it had a sign in it that said, "I'm a better transcendent than > the one you get with iddy-biddy mantras" then that wouldn't be the > transcendent, would it? a > > Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > biosoundbill wrote: > > Bhairitu, > > > > I meant to ask you as you meditate with a longer mantra > > effortlessly,are you able to let go completely as in TM where the > > bija can become very faint,unclear, and barely recognizable.Are you > > able to allow a longer mantra to become very faint,unclear, and > > barely recognizable also? > > > > >From my preception it seems that a longer mantra would,unlike TM, > > require a degree of concentration! > > > > Namaste, > > > > Billy > Yes the longer mantra will refine to a very faint idea. After a while > the mantra will also just go on it's own so no concentration required. > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
About $4000. :) And you stay in the transcendent longer. Angela Mailander wrote: > So then, what's the difference? the transcendence is the transcendent, right? > If it had a sign in it that said, "I'm a better transcendent than the one > you get with iddy-biddy mantras" then that wouldn't be the transcendent, > would it? a > > Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > biosoundbill wrote: > > Bhairitu, > > > > I meant to ask you as you meditate with a longer mantra > > effortlessly,are you able to let go completely as in TM where the > > bija can become very faint,unclear, and barely recognizable.Are you > > able to allow a longer mantra to become very faint,unclear, and > > barely recognizable also? > > > > >From my preception it seems that a longer mantra would,unlike TM, > > require a degree of concentration! > > > > Namaste, > > > > Billy > Yes the longer mantra will refine to a very faint idea. After a while > the mantra will also just go on it's own so no concentration required. > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
So then, what's the difference? the transcendence is the transcendent, right? If it had a sign in it that said, "I'm a better transcendent than the one you get with iddy-biddy mantras" then that wouldn't be the transcendent, would it? a Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: biosoundbill wrote: > Bhairitu, > > I meant to ask you as you meditate with a longer mantra > effortlessly,are you able to let go completely as in TM where the > bija can become very faint,unclear, and barely recognizable.Are you > able to allow a longer mantra to become very faint,unclear, and > barely recognizable also? > > >From my preception it seems that a longer mantra would,unlike TM, > require a degree of concentration! > > Namaste, > > Billy Yes the longer mantra will refine to a very faint idea. After a while the mantra will also just go on it's own so no concentration required. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
biosoundbill wrote: > Bhairitu, > > I meant to ask you as you meditate with a longer mantra > effortlessly,are you able to let go completely as in TM where the > bija can become very faint,unclear, and barely recognizable.Are you > able to allow a longer mantra to become very faint,unclear, and > barely recognizable also? > > >From my preception it seems that a longer mantra would,unlike TM, > require a degree of concentration! > > Namaste, > > Billy Yes the longer mantra will refine to a very faint idea. After a while the mantra will also just go on it's own so no concentration required.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Bhairitu, I meant to ask you as you meditate with a longer mantra effortlessly,are you able to let go completely as in TM where the bija can become very faint,unclear, and barely recognizable.Are you able to allow a longer mantra to become very faint,unclear, and barely recognizable also? >From my preception it seems that a longer mantra would,unlike TM, require a degree of concentration! Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > kaladevi93 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > > >> A longer mantra cultures the mind at deeper levels. The short bij > >> mantra bobs up and down. It is not like a rock but more like a > >> basketball being dribbled. But the longer mantra keeps you at a deep > >> level for longer periods of time. Unfortunately on the airplane trip > >> home after TTC where MMY gave out the advanced techniques about 2/3's of > >> those who got advanced techniques couldn't remember what they were > >> given. I had two versions in my mind: the correct one and one shorter > >> but didn't know which was right. I went on for years switching between > >> one and the other with different results. I didn't care much for that > >> uncertainty and even wrote two mantra check letters to MMY but never got > >> anything back. > >> > >> > > > > Rather than making an absolute statement that would clearly appeal to TMers, wouldn't it > > be fairer to say 'in some simple forms of meditation using mental repetition of mantra a > > longer mantra can culture the mind at deeper levels. A short bija mantra can sometimes > > bob up and down.' Otherwise you are ignoring the fact that some yogis will use a bija and > > trace it's component parts to beyond the mind and to the deepest absorptions (something > > never witnessed in TM meditators). Likewise other lay people may just use a long mantra > > in a more discursive fashion (consider 'Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. > > Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, > > Mother of God..etc.' as an English example or Om Mani Padme Hum superstitiously > > repeated by thousands of TIbetans). > > > > Your statement is not absolutely true, only conditionally true. > It still conveys the concept. I'm not going to waste a lot of time > exactly crafting my statements. Who has time for that? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 20, 2007, at 7:26 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Richard, > >> > >> In the text below you appear to be admitting that bija mantras are > >> used in TM! > >> > >> Why the sudden change of mind,are you a little confused? > > > > Billy...Richard lives under a bridge. > > Yep, that's it, Judy--anyone who doesn't know that "bija > mantras" are used in TM is a clueless nitwit who lives under > a bridge. Sal...dear lady, you're hopeless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Billy_Goats_Gruff > Has it ever occurred to you that you and the others concerned > with all of this spiritual nit-picking are obsessive/compulsive > bores? Not that there's anything wrong with that! (snicker) Has it ever occurred to you that you're trigger-happy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
On Oct 20, 2007, at 7:26 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Richard, In the text below you appear to be admitting that bija mantras are used in TM! Why the sudden change of mind,are you a little confused? Billy...Richard lives under a bridge. Yep, that's it, Judy--anyone who doesn't know that "bija mantras" are used in TM is a clueless nitwit who lives under a bridge. Has it ever occurred to you that you and the others concerned with all of this spiritual nit-picking are obsessive/compulsive bores? Not that there's anything wrong with that! (snicker) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > In the text below you appear to be admitting that bija mantras are > used in TM! > > Why the sudden change of mind,are you a little confused? Billy...Richard lives under a bridge. > Namaste, > > Billy > > > > [FairfieldLife] Re: Did MMY's Guru Dev teach TM? Anybody > > know. > > Richard J. Williams > > Sun, 21 Jan 2007 09:55:44 -0800 > > > > wgm4u wrote: > > > > > > Just wondering if the 'tradition' starts with MMY. :-) > > > > > Billy - The TM tradition probably originated with the Nath > alchemists > > of medieval India, the so-called "Eighty-four Mahasiddhas" and with > > Matsyendranath, the inventor of Hatha Yoga. This tradition was > taken > > to Kashmir where it became the Trika system and then later to South > > Asia to become the Sri Vidya tradition of Shankara. > > > > According to what I've read, Guru Dev's teacher was Swami > Krishanand > > Saraswati of Sringeri. If so, that means that Guru Dev was, like > his > > teacher, a student of the Sri Vidya, which was established by > > Shankara > > at Sringeri. Apparently there are three TM bija mantras inscribed > on > > the Sri Chakra, which is ensconced at the Sringeri temple. > > > > It is a fact that all the Saraswati Dasanamis worship the Sri > Vidya. > > It is also a fact that the Sri Chakra is ensconced on the mandir at > > Dwarka and at the Kanchi Mathas. It is also a fact that all the > > Adwaita Sannyasins claim that Adi Shankara established four mathas > as > > seats of learning and for the worship of Sri Vidya. In addition, > all > > the Shankaracharyas agree that Shankara composed the > Soundaryalahari, > > with the TM bija mantras included among the thirteeen other bija > > mantras. > > > > According to the Shankaracharya of Sringeri, the Adi Shankara > placed > > the Sri Chakra, symbol of Tripurasundari, with the TM mantras > > inscribed thereon, at each of the seats of learning - Dwarka, Puri, > > Sringeri, Kanchi and at Jyotirmath. The mantras of TM are DIRECTLY > > related to Sri Vidya. At least three TM bija mantras appear > inscribed > > on the Sri Chakra. > > > > According to Swami Rama, Guru Dev was fond of the Sri Chakra and > used > > one in his puja. So, if the Sri Chakra has the TM mantras written > on > > it, and Shankara wrote the Soundaryalahari, with the thirteen bija > > mantras, three of which are used in the practice of TM, we can > assume > > that the TM bija mantras used by MMY are derived from the Tantric > > Tradition of Shankara as practiced in Kerala State. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > wrote: > > > > matrixmonitor wrote: > > > The Mahareeshee was by No means a sexual deviate! > > > He simply had normal sexual relationships, (encounters) > > > with various females. > > > > > So, how would you be knowing anything about the Marshy's > > personal sex life? > > > > > What's wrong with that? > > > > > Did I say it was wrong? I just said it was deviate, as > > reported, on this forum. If you put forth the case that > > you are a celibate monk, and then you resort to fornication, > > with unmarried female students that work for you, that > > certainly is deviating from celibacy. What do you think? > > > > biosoundbill wrote: > > > > > Richard are you saying that the TM mantras are > > > > > not Tantric Bija Mantras? > > > > > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > > Bill - The so-called TM bija mantras are just common > > > > everyday words from the Sanskrit dictionary. They can > > > > be found in almost any standard Sanskrit lexicon. For > > > > example, Ram, Sri, Nama...nothing esoteric. > > > > > > > > In contrast, Buddhist Tantric bijas are all esoteric - > > > > sounds that have no semantic meaning. Marshy is not > > > > a Tantric Yogi, therefore he would be knowing nothing > > > > about any esoteric bijas. He may or may not have been > > > > instructed in Sri Vidya by his guru, and Marshy may or > > > > may not have read Shankara's Saundarylahari. > > > > > > > > However, there are no bija mantras to be found in the > > > > Rig Veda, the scriptures extolled by the Marshy. If he > > > > were to impart any esoteric bija mantras, where whould > > > > he have gotten them? If he read them in books, that > > > > would be a travesty for him to pass them on - you can > > > > get real bija mantras only in an initiation from a > > > > tantric guru. > > > > > > > > There are no bija mantras in Patanjalis Yoga Sutras or > > > > in any of the standard Upanishads. > > > > > > > > That is unless you are suggesting that Marshy was a > > > > Tantric Guru - if so, why do you suppose he hasn't > > > > shared any of his insights into sexual yoga, and why > > > > would he keep all the sex enjoyment techniques to himself? > > > > > > > > We already know that the Marshy was a sexual deviate - > > > > but now you're suggesting that
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Hi Richard, In the text below you appear to be admitting that bija mantras are used in TM! Why the sudden change of mind,are you a little confused? Namaste, Billy > [FairfieldLife] Re: Did MMY's Guru Dev teach TM? Anybody > know. > Richard J. Williams > Sun, 21 Jan 2007 09:55:44 -0800 > > wgm4u wrote: > > > > Just wondering if the 'tradition' starts with MMY. :-) > > > Billy - The TM tradition probably originated with the Nath alchemists > of medieval India, the so-called "Eighty-four Mahasiddhas" and with > Matsyendranath, the inventor of Hatha Yoga. This tradition was taken > to Kashmir where it became the Trika system and then later to South > Asia to become the Sri Vidya tradition of Shankara. > > According to what I've read, Guru Dev's teacher was Swami Krishanand > Saraswati of Sringeri. If so, that means that Guru Dev was, like his > teacher, a student of the Sri Vidya, which was established by > Shankara > at Sringeri. Apparently there are three TM bija mantras inscribed on > the Sri Chakra, which is ensconced at the Sringeri temple. > > It is a fact that all the Saraswati Dasanamis worship the Sri Vidya. > It is also a fact that the Sri Chakra is ensconced on the mandir at > Dwarka and at the Kanchi Mathas. It is also a fact that all the > Adwaita Sannyasins claim that Adi Shankara established four mathas as > seats of learning and for the worship of Sri Vidya. In addition, all > the Shankaracharyas agree that Shankara composed the Soundaryalahari, > with the TM bija mantras included among the thirteeen other bija > mantras. > > According to the Shankaracharya of Sringeri, the Adi Shankara placed > the Sri Chakra, symbol of Tripurasundari, with the TM mantras > inscribed thereon, at each of the seats of learning - Dwarka, Puri, > Sringeri, Kanchi and at Jyotirmath. The mantras of TM are DIRECTLY > related to Sri Vidya. At least three TM bija mantras appear inscribed > on the Sri Chakra. > > According to Swami Rama, Guru Dev was fond of the Sri Chakra and used > one in his puja. So, if the Sri Chakra has the TM mantras written on > it, and Shankara wrote the Soundaryalahari, with the thirteen bija > mantras, three of which are used in the practice of TM, we can assume > that the TM bija mantras used by MMY are derived from the Tantric > Tradition of Shankara as practiced in Kerala State. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > matrixmonitor wrote: > > The Mahareeshee was by No means a sexual deviate! > > He simply had normal sexual relationships, (encounters) > > with various females. > > > So, how would you be knowing anything about the Marshy's > personal sex life? > > > What's wrong with that? > > > Did I say it was wrong? I just said it was deviate, as > reported, on this forum. If you put forth the case that > you are a celibate monk, and then you resort to fornication, > with unmarried female students that work for you, that > certainly is deviating from celibacy. What do you think? > > biosoundbill wrote: > > > > Richard are you saying that the TM mantras are > > > > not Tantric Bija Mantras? > > > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > Bill - The so-called TM bija mantras are just common > > > everyday words from the Sanskrit dictionary. They can > > > be found in almost any standard Sanskrit lexicon. For > > > example, Ram, Sri, Nama...nothing esoteric. > > > > > > In contrast, Buddhist Tantric bijas are all esoteric - > > > sounds that have no semantic meaning. Marshy is not > > > a Tantric Yogi, therefore he would be knowing nothing > > > about any esoteric bijas. He may or may not have been > > > instructed in Sri Vidya by his guru, and Marshy may or > > > may not have read Shankara's Saundarylahari. > > > > > > However, there are no bija mantras to be found in the > > > Rig Veda, the scriptures extolled by the Marshy. If he > > > were to impart any esoteric bija mantras, where whould > > > he have gotten them? If he read them in books, that > > > would be a travesty for him to pass them on - you can > > > get real bija mantras only in an initiation from a > > > tantric guru. > > > > > > There are no bija mantras in Patanjalis Yoga Sutras or > > > in any of the standard Upanishads. > > > > > > That is unless you are suggesting that Marshy was a > > > Tantric Guru - if so, why do you suppose he hasn't > > > shared any of his insights into sexual yoga, and why > > > would he keep all the sex enjoyment techniques to himself? > > > > > > We already know that the Marshy was a sexual deviate - > > > but now you're suggesting that he passed out tantric > > > bija mantras that he read about in a book, without > > > having been an authentic tantric initiate? > > > > > > What's up with that? > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
matrixmonitor wrote: > The Mahareeshee was by No means a sexual deviate! > He simply had normal sexual relationships, (encounters) > with various females. > So, how would you be knowing anything about the Marshy's personal sex life? > What's wrong with that? > Did I say it was wrong? I just said it was deviate, as reported, on this forum. If you put forth the case that you are a celibate monk, and then you resort to fornication, with unmarried female students that work for you, that certainly is deviating from celibacy. What do you think? biosoundbill wrote: > > > Richard are you saying that the TM mantras are > > > not Tantric Bija Mantras? > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > Bill - The so-called TM bija mantras are just common > > everyday words from the Sanskrit dictionary. They can > > be found in almost any standard Sanskrit lexicon. For > > example, Ram, Sri, Nama...nothing esoteric. > > > > In contrast, Buddhist Tantric bijas are all esoteric - > > sounds that have no semantic meaning. Marshy is not > > a Tantric Yogi, therefore he would be knowing nothing > > about any esoteric bijas. He may or may not have been > > instructed in Sri Vidya by his guru, and Marshy may or > > may not have read Shankara's Saundarylahari. > > > > However, there are no bija mantras to be found in the > > Rig Veda, the scriptures extolled by the Marshy. If he > > were to impart any esoteric bija mantras, where whould > > he have gotten them? If he read them in books, that > > would be a travesty for him to pass them on - you can > > get real bija mantras only in an initiation from a > > tantric guru. > > > > There are no bija mantras in Patanjalis Yoga Sutras or > > in any of the standard Upanishads. > > > > That is unless you are suggesting that Marshy was a > > Tantric Guru - if so, why do you suppose he hasn't > > shared any of his insights into sexual yoga, and why > > would he keep all the sex enjoyment techniques to himself? > > > > We already know that the Marshy was a sexual deviate - > > but now you're suggesting that he passed out tantric > > bija mantras that he read about in a book, without > > having been an authentic tantric initiate? > > > > What's up with that? > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Richard J. Williams wrote: > Bhairitu wrote: > >> Don't feed the troll. Don't take mantra knowledge >> from a troll. Enough said. >> >> > Fuck you, Mr. Bharat2 - when you unsubscribe to ComCast > get back to us. Is it alright with you, Sir, if I dialog > with Bill, for just 1 minute, without you butting in > with your surly personal attacks? > > Now we know who is the real troll around here. > > >> You would have to be both deaf and blind to not >> know bij mantras growing up in India. :) >> >> > So, what then, is the big secret, and why are you > attempting to make us believe that you've got some > secret knowledge of magic words and phareses. Growing > up in India anyone would know that you are a pretender, > and that all you are really doing is waving your hands > around over a fire and snaping your fingers. And, > for what purpose? > > NEW YORK - Comcast Corp. actively interferes with > attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers > to share files online, a move that runs counter to the > tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally. > > Full story: > > 'Comcast blocks some Internet traffic' > By Peter Svensen > http://tinyurl.com/2aa3tr Where did I say *you* were a troll? But if the shoe fits then wear it. :) Note my email address. It is the *other* NWO company AT&T. So far they aren't blocking what rare P2P files I download *which* are BTW totally legal. They are often ISO files for Linux, some video and music files distributed by the authors that way. That's why Comcast is very lame doing this because there *are* companies including film studios using P2P as a low cost way to distribute even DRM'd stuff. You can use DixX's DRM this way as once downloaded DivX's software will download with your authorization code a small section of the file that makes it playable. That's why they can even publish the DRM code but it is of no use for a hacker. Too bad Microsoft, Apple and other MPAA companies engineers aren't that bright. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
---The Mahareeshee was by No means a sexual deviate!. He simply had normal sexual relationships, (encounters) with various females. What's wrong with that? In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > biosoundbill wrote: > > Richard are you saying that the TM mantras are > > not Tantric Bija Mantras? > > > Bill - The so-called TM bija mantras are just common > everyday words from the Sanskrit dictionary. They can > be found in almost any standard Sanskrit lexicon. For > example, Ram, Sri, Nama...nothing esoteric. > > In contrast, Buddhist Tantric bijas are all esoteric - > sounds that have no semantic meaning. Marshy is not > a Tantric Yogi, therefore he would be knowing nothing > about any esoteric bijas. He may or may not have been > instructed in Sri Vidya by his guru, and Marshy may or > may not have read Shankara's Saundarylahari. > > However, there are no bija mantras to be found in the > Rig Veda, the scriptures extolled by the Marshy. If he > were to impart any esoteric bija mantras, where whould > he have gotten them? If he read them in books, that > would be a travesty for him to pass them on - you can > get real bija mantras only in an initiation from a > tantric guru. > > There are no bija mantras in Patanjalis Yoga Sutras or > in any of the standard Upanishads. > > That is unless you are suggesting that Marshy was a > Tantric Guru - if so, why do you suppose he hasn't > shared any of his insights into sexual yoga, and why > would he keep all the sex enjoyment techniques to himself? > > We already know that the Marshy was a sexual deviate - > but now you're suggesting that he passed out tantric > bija mantras that he read about in a book, without > having been an authentic tantric initiate? > > What's up with that? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
biosoundbill wrote: > Richard are you saying that the TM mantras are > not Tantric Bija Mantras? > Bill - The so-called TM bija mantras are just common everyday words from the Sanskrit dictionary. They can be found in almost any standard Sanskrit lexicon. For example, Ram, Sri, Nama...nothing esoteric. In contrast, Buddhist Tantric bijas are all esoteric - sounds that have no semantic meaning. Marshy is not a Tantric Yogi, therefore he would be knowing nothing about any esoteric bijas. He may or may not have been instructed in Sri Vidya by his guru, and Marshy may or may not have read Shankara's Saundarylahari. However, there are no bija mantras to be found in the Rig Veda, the scriptures extolled by the Marshy. If he were to impart any esoteric bija mantras, where whould he have gotten them? If he read them in books, that would be a travesty for him to pass them on - you can get real bija mantras only in an initiation from a tantric guru. There are no bija mantras in Patanjalis Yoga Sutras or in any of the standard Upanishads. That is unless you are suggesting that Marshy was a Tantric Guru - if so, why do you suppose he hasn't shared any of his insights into sexual yoga, and why would he keep all the sex enjoyment techniques to himself? We already know that the Marshy was a sexual deviate - but now you're suggesting that he passed out tantric bija mantras that he read about in a book, without having been an authentic tantric initiate? What's up with that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Don't feed the troll. Don't take mantra knowledge from a troll. Enough said. > > You would have to be both deaf and blind to not know bij mantras growing > up in India. :) > > > biosoundbill wrote: > > Richard, > > > > Most of the TM mantras are listed in the Varada Tantra. > > > > I believe MMY played around with them a little to dilute their > > power, like making Kriing into ki-ring, Shriing into shir-ing, > > Hriing into Hi-ring, shyam into she-am, etc In Sanskrit, 'y' as in English 'yes', represents, I believe, (almost?) always an older i-sound. In Vedic recitation, words like 'suurya' (sun), are often pronounced like 'suuria'. Actually, I seem to recall that 'suuryaH' is *always* pronounced like 'suuriaH'(~soo-ree-a[k]ha), but am not absolutely sure about that. I think the pronunciation depends on the requirements of the metre (meter)in question. In Classical Sanskrit, it is, "of course", pronounced like 'soor-ya(k)ha'! Thus it seems that 'she-am' (shiaama) would represent an older pronunciation, if that word is old enough to appear in the saMhitaa-s, and stuff. Have no idea whether that makes that word more or less powerful... > > He really went to town on Saraswati aing,ainga,aim,and aima > > (Pronounced i-ing, i-ing-ah, i-im, and i-eem-ah respectively) was > > he short on mantras, or what? > > > > Again as I said before, Southern pronunciation is slightly > > different, they pronounce the `ii' in a bija as the `ee' in the word > > feet etc,they also tend to use only the anusvara `M' ending,where > > the lips are closed pushing the sound up the nasal passages. It > > sounds more like the `mb' ending in the word Numb! > > > > In the North the `ii' is pronounced more like the `i' in the words > > ring, bring, fling, etc > > Some Northerners use the anusvara `M' ending, but more use the > > allegedly more powerful `ng' ending known as anunAsika,- personally I > > think the anusvara `M' ending is more powerful and grounding in the > > long term. > > > > The late Harish Johari tended to pronounce the bijas with `ng' > > endings combined with the `ee' sound as against the `i' sound giving > > shreeng, hreeng, kreeng, etc > > > > Bottom line no matter what way the bijas are pronounced they are all > > Tantric. > > > > Namaste, > > > > Billy > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > > wrote: > > > >> Bhairitu wrote: > >> > >>> The short bij mantra bobs up and down. > >>> > >>> > >> There seems to be some confusion here. Marshy doesn't > >> give out 'bija' mantras, only the names of the devatas, > >> the deified heroes of the Hindu tradition, along with > >> various words and phrases from Sanskrit. Marshy isn't > >> a tantric yogi in the Nath tradition, therefore he > >> would not be knowing any actual bija mantras. The tantric > >> bija mantras are enumerated in the Buddhist Tantras. > >> There are no bija mantras in the Rig Veda, in the > >> Upahishads, or in the Puranas. There are no canonical > >> collections of bija mantras in Hinduism. The Buddhist > >> bija mantras all originated with the Nath Siddhas when > >> India was a Buddhist country. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
kaladevi93 wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> A longer mantra cultures the mind at deeper levels. The short bij >> mantra bobs up and down. It is not like a rock but more like a >> basketball being dribbled. But the longer mantra keeps you at a deep >> level for longer periods of time. Unfortunately on the airplane trip >> home after TTC where MMY gave out the advanced techniques about 2/3's of >> those who got advanced techniques couldn't remember what they were >> given. I had two versions in my mind: the correct one and one shorter >> but didn't know which was right. I went on for years switching between >> one and the other with different results. I didn't care much for that >> uncertainty and even wrote two mantra check letters to MMY but never got >> anything back. >> >> > > Rather than making an absolute statement that would clearly appeal to TMers, > wouldn't it > be fairer to say 'in some simple forms of meditation using mental repetition > of mantra a > longer mantra can culture the mind at deeper levels. A short bija mantra can > sometimes > bob up and down.' Otherwise you are ignoring the fact that some yogis will > use a bija and > trace it's component parts to beyond the mind and to the deepest absorptions > (something > never witnessed in TM meditators). Likewise other lay people may just use a > long mantra > in a more discursive fashion (consider 'Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is > with thee. > Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. > Holy Mary, > Mother of God..etc.' as an English example or Om Mani Padme Hum > superstitiously > repeated by thousands of TIbetans). > > Your statement is not absolutely true, only conditionally true. It still conveys the concept. I'm not going to waste a lot of time exactly crafting my statements. Who has time for that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Probably not one person, in the whole history of mankind, > > > has ever been enlightened by repeating gibberish. > > > > BillyG wrote: > > You mean the powerful goo-goo gaa-gaa mantra? Agreed! > > > According to Marshy, it is NOT the technique that causes > the enlightened state. The Light is already there, you need > no other light to illuminate it. That was the big mistake > made by the Marshy - introducing the mantras. He would have > been wiser to have us meditate on the sound current - Shabd, > the pure sound of Vac - and leave all the bijas to the > Tibetans for their rituals and ceremonies. If not for this > mistake the world would probably be heaven on earth by now! > > As it is, we've now got pundits all over downtown Oakland > whispering non-sense gibberish into the ears of unsuspecting > aspirants, leading them astray and attempting to convince > them that someday they will be acharyas of secret lore. > > Now I ask you: if a secret word or phrase could enlighten > the world, would it not be a crime to keep it secret? > > Forget the puja, forget the mantras, forget the SCI and the > Creation Science - just sit. That's all you have to do. You > are already transcending, even without a technique or a > secret word. > > Sitting IS enlightenment. Not quite, the mantras may be found in books but are said to originate in the petals of the spinal chakras, (discovered by the ancient Rishis) as such they have magnetic power to attract much like a tuning fork once struck will induce the same vibration in the other and thru the power of attraction transcending is made possible. Once you have 'transcended' a certain amount, and the channels are open, the mind is spontaneously drawn within to pure anandam. True all you have to do is sit but don't forget Chitta/Vritti/Niroda...tut, tut. :=)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Don't feed the troll. Don't take mantra knowledge from a troll. Enough said. You would have to be both deaf and blind to not know bij mantras growing up in India. :) biosoundbill wrote: > Richard, > > Most of the TM mantras are listed in the Varada Tantra. > > I believe MMY played around with them a little to dilute their > power, like making Kriing into ki-ring, Shriing into shir-ing, > Hriing into Hi-ring, shyam into she-am, etc > He really went to town on Saraswati aing,ainga,aim,and aima > (Pronounced i-ing, i-ing-ah, i-im, and i-eem-ah respectively) – was > he short on mantras, or what? > > Again as I said before, Southern pronunciation is slightly > different, they pronounce the `ii' in a bija as the `ee' in the word > feet etc,they also tend to use only the anusvara `M' ending,where > the lips are closed pushing the sound up the nasal passages. It > sounds more like the `mb' ending in the word Numb! > > In the North the `ii' is pronounced more like the `i' in the words > ring, bring, fling, etc > Some Northerners use the anusvara `M' ending, but more use the > allegedly more powerful `ng' ending known as anunAsika,-personally I > think the anusvara `M' ending is more powerful and grounding in the > long term. > > The late Harish Johari tended to pronounce the bijas with `ng' > endings combined with the `ee' sound as against the `i' sound giving > shreeng, hreeng, kreeng, etc > > Bottom line no matter what way the bijas are pronounced they are all > Tantric. > > Namaste, > > Billy > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Bhairitu wrote: >> >>> The short bij mantra bobs up and down. >>> >>> >> There seems to be some confusion here. Marshy doesn't >> give out 'bija' mantras, only the names of the devatas, >> the deified heroes of the Hindu tradition, along with >> various words and phrases from Sanskrit. Marshy isn't >> a tantric yogi in the Nath tradition, therefore he >> would not be knowing any actual bija mantras. The tantric >> bija mantras are enumerated in the Buddhist Tantras. >> There are no bija mantras in the Rig Veda, in the >> Upahishads, or in the Puranas. There are no canonical >> collections of bija mantras in Hinduism. The Buddhist >> bija mantras all originated with the Nath Siddhas when >> India was a Buddhist country. >> >> > > > > 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Richard are you saying that the TM mantras are not Tantric Bija Mantras? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > biosoundbill wrote: > > Most of the TM mantras are listed in the Varada Tantra. > > > Maybe so, but Varada is the mudra of Ratnasambhava, the > third Dhyani Buddha. The Varada Tantra was composed long > after the advent of Buddhist Tantras. The TM mantras are > enumerated in the Saundaryalahari ascribed to Shankara. > > We can assume that Marshy learned about these mantras from > his guru Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, since the Swami was > a devotee of Tripursundari, the main deity of the Saraswati > devotees of Sringeri. Brahmananda's own guru, Swami Krishanand > Saraswati, hailed from Sringeri, the headquarters of the > Saraswati Dandas. > > > I believe MMY played around with them a little to dilute > > their power, like making Kriing into ki-ring, Shriing > > into shir-ing, Hriing into Hi-ring, shyam into she-am, etc > > He really went to town on Saraswati aing,ainga,aim,and aima > > (Pronounced i-ing, i-ing-ah, i-im, and i-eem-ah respectively) > > was he short on mantras, or what? > > > > Again as I said before, Southern pronunciation is slightly > > different, they pronounce the `ii' in a bija as the `ee' in > > the word feet etc,they also tend to use only the anusvara > > `M' ending,where the lips are closed pushing the sound up > > the nasal passages. It sounds more like the `mb' ending in > > the word Numb! > > > > In the North the `ii' is pronounced more like the `i' in > > the words ring, bring, fling, etc > > Some Northerners use the anusvara `M' ending, but more use > > the allegedly more powerful `ng' ending known as anunAsika, > > - > personally I think the anusvara `M' ending is more > > powerful and grounding in the long term. > > > > The late Harish Johari tended to pronounce the bijas with > > `ng' endings combined with the `ee' sound as against the > > `i' sound giving shreeng, hreeng, kreeng, etc > > > > Bottom line no matter what way the bijas are pronounced > > they are all Tantric. > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > There seems to be some confusion here. Marshy doesn't > > > give out 'bija' mantras, only the names of the devatas, > > > the deified heroes of the Hindu tradition, along with > > > various words and phrases from Sanskrit. Marshy isn't > > > a tantric yogi in the Nath tradition, therefore he > > > would not be knowing any actual bija mantras. The tantric > > > bija mantras are enumerated in the Buddhist Tantras. > > > There are no bija mantras in the Rig Veda, in the > > > Upahishads, or in the Puranas. There are no canonical > > > collections of bija mantras in Hinduism. The Buddhist > > > bija mantras all originated with the Nath Siddhas when > > > India was a Buddhist country. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
biosoundbill wrote: > Most of the TM mantras are listed in the Varada Tantra. > Maybe so, but Varada is the mudra of Ratnasambhava, the third Dhyani Buddha. The Varada Tantra was composed long after the advent of Buddhist Tantras. The TM mantras are enumerated in the Saundaryalahari ascribed to Shankara. We can assume that Marshy learned about these mantras from his guru Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, since the Swami was a devotee of Tripursundari, the main deity of the Saraswati devotees of Sringeri. Brahmananda's own guru, Swami Krishanand Saraswati, hailed from Sringeri, the headquarters of the Saraswati Dandas. > I believe MMY played around with them a little to dilute > their power, like making Kriing into ki-ring, Shriing > into shir-ing, Hriing into Hi-ring, shyam into she-am, etc > He really went to town on Saraswati aing,ainga,aim,and aima > (Pronounced i-ing, i-ing-ah, i-im, and i-eem-ah respectively) > was he short on mantras, or what? > > Again as I said before, Southern pronunciation is slightly > different, they pronounce the `ii' in a bija as the `ee' in > the word feet etc,they also tend to use only the anusvara > `M' ending,where the lips are closed pushing the sound up > the nasal passages. It sounds more like the `mb' ending in > the word Numb! > > In the North the `ii' is pronounced more like the `i' in > the words ring, bring, fling, etc > Some Northerners use the anusvara `M' ending, but more use > the allegedly more powerful `ng' ending known as anunAsika, > - > personally I think the anusvara `M' ending is more > powerful and grounding in the long term. > > The late Harish Johari tended to pronounce the bijas with > `ng' endings combined with the `ee' sound as against the > `i' sound giving shreeng, hreeng, kreeng, etc > > Bottom line no matter what way the bijas are pronounced > they are all Tantric. > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > There seems to be some confusion here. Marshy doesn't > > give out 'bija' mantras, only the names of the devatas, > > the deified heroes of the Hindu tradition, along with > > various words and phrases from Sanskrit. Marshy isn't > > a tantric yogi in the Nath tradition, therefore he > > would not be knowing any actual bija mantras. The tantric > > bija mantras are enumerated in the Buddhist Tantras. > > There are no bija mantras in the Rig Veda, in the > > Upahishads, or in the Puranas. There are no canonical > > collections of bija mantras in Hinduism. The Buddhist > > bija mantras all originated with the Nath Siddhas when > > India was a Buddhist country. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Richard, I disagree with you, I'm not attacking you, and I'm just agreeing to differ. I think MMY should decide on which version of the Tantric mantras he wishes to use. Either the `M' endings or the `ng' endings. He should have each new initiate complete a detailed questionnaire under the supervision of a TM teacher to determine what energy is lacking in the individual. David Frawley, who helped Deepak Chopra develop his technique, uses this type of mantra selection criteria. The mantra or bija mantra would then be selected to suit the constitution of the individual as against giving the same mantra to each individual in an age group. - MMY even speaks about "Why the selection of a proper thought for a particular individual is a vital factor in the practice of Transcendental Meditation" In his book "Science of Being and Art of Living" see page 50 under the heading Importance of a Proper Thought Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Probably not one person, in the whole history of mankind, > > > has ever been enlightened by repeating gibberish. > > > > BillyG wrote: > > You mean the powerful goo-goo gaa-gaa mantra? Agreed! > > > According to Marshy, it is NOT the technique that causes > the enlightened state. The Light is already there, you need > no other light to illuminate it. That was the big mistake > made by the Marshy - introducing the mantras. He would have > been wiser to have us meditate on the sound current - Shabd, > the pure sound of Vac - and leave all the bijas to the > Tibetans for their rituals and ceremonies. If not for this > mistake the world would probably be heaven on earth by now! > > As it is, we've now got pundits all over downtown Oakland > whispering non-sense gibberish into the ears of unsuspecting > aspirants, leading them astray and attempting to convince > them that someday they will be acharyas of secret lore. > > Now I ask you: if a secret word or phrase could enlighten > the world, would it not be a crime to keep it secret? > > Forget the puja, forget the mantras, forget the SCI and the > Creation Science - just sit. That's all you have to do. You > are already transcending, even without a technique or a > secret word. > > Sitting IS enlightenment. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Richard, Most of the TM mantras are listed in the Varada Tantra. I believe MMY played around with them a little to dilute their power, like making Kriing into ki-ring, Shriing into shir-ing, Hriing into Hi-ring, shyam into she-am, etc He really went to town on Saraswati aing,ainga,aim,and aima (Pronounced i-ing, i-ing-ah, i-im, and i-eem-ah respectively) was he short on mantras, or what? Again as I said before, Southern pronunciation is slightly different, they pronounce the `ii' in a bija as the `ee' in the word feet etc,they also tend to use only the anusvara `M' ending,where the lips are closed pushing the sound up the nasal passages. It sounds more like the `mb' ending in the word Numb! In the North the `ii' is pronounced more like the `i' in the words ring, bring, fling, etc Some Northerners use the anusvara `M' ending, but more use the allegedly more powerful `ng' ending known as anunAsika,-personally I think the anusvara `M' ending is more powerful and grounding in the long term. The late Harish Johari tended to pronounce the bijas with `ng' endings combined with the `ee' sound as against the `i' sound giving shreeng, hreeng, kreeng, etc Bottom line no matter what way the bijas are pronounced they are all Tantric. Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bhairitu wrote: > > The short bij mantra bobs up and down. > > > There seems to be some confusion here. Marshy doesn't > give out 'bija' mantras, only the names of the devatas, > the deified heroes of the Hindu tradition, along with > various words and phrases from Sanskrit. Marshy isn't > a tantric yogi in the Nath tradition, therefore he > would not be knowing any actual bija mantras. The tantric > bija mantras are enumerated in the Buddhist Tantras. > There are no bija mantras in the Rig Veda, in the > Upahishads, or in the Puranas. There are no canonical > collections of bija mantras in Hinduism. The Buddhist > bija mantras all originated with the Nath Siddhas when > India was a Buddhist country. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
> > Probably not one person, in the whole history of mankind, > > has ever been enlightened by repeating gibberish. > > BillyG wrote: > You mean the powerful goo-goo gaa-gaa mantra? Agreed! > According to Marshy, it is NOT the technique that causes the enlightened state. The Light is already there, you need no other light to illuminate it. That was the big mistake made by the Marshy - introducing the mantras. He would have been wiser to have us meditate on the sound current - Shabd, the pure sound of Vac - and leave all the bijas to the Tibetans for their rituals and ceremonies. If not for this mistake the world would probably be heaven on earth by now! As it is, we've now got pundits all over downtown Oakland whispering non-sense gibberish into the ears of unsuspecting aspirants, leading them astray and attempting to convince them that someday they will be acharyas of secret lore. Now I ask you: if a secret word or phrase could enlighten the world, would it not be a crime to keep it secret? Forget the puja, forget the mantras, forget the SCI and the Creation Science - just sit. That's all you have to do. You are already transcending, even without a technique or a secret word. Sitting IS enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Bhairitu wrote: > The short bij mantra bobs up and down. > There seems to be some confusion here. Marshy doesn't give out 'bija' mantras, only the names of the devatas, the deified heroes of the Hindu tradition, along with various words and phrases from Sanskrit. Marshy isn't a tantric yogi in the Nath tradition, therefore he would not be knowing any actual bija mantras. The tantric bija mantras are enumerated in the Buddhist Tantras. There are no bija mantras in the Rig Veda, in the Upahishads, or in the Puranas. There are no canonical collections of bija mantras in Hinduism. The Buddhist bija mantras all originated with the Nath Siddhas when India was a Buddhist country.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
biosoundbill wrote: > I fully understand what the word 'Sri' and sometimes > 'Shri' means, it's used as a respectful affix to > mantras etc. > All I wanted to point out, Bill, is that you have not included any actual tantric bija mantras - you've just been posting words and phrases found in any Sanskrit dictionary. In fact, there are no actual Hindu bija mantras, there are only Tantric Buddhist bija mantras. All the Buddhist Tantras were composed long before Hindu Tantricism was invented. Almost all Hindu bija mantras are just phonemes or quasi phonemes overheard at Buddhist yoga camp meets. They are gibberish, pure and simple. Sounds made up to imitate Buddhist bija mantras. To repeat, there is no actual Hindu Tantic bija mantras. There is only Buddhist Tantricism, that is derived from the tradition of the Nath Siddhas, the 84 Mahasiddhas who invented Indian alchemy. You must be going to a real Buddhist teacher who has been initiated into the Tantra Yoga tradition - you can learn nothing about tantra from an Indian pilot in downtown Oakland. All the Hindu tantric traditions are just so much mish-mash, mixed-up, conglomerations of pseudo-tantra invented in order to confuse the people by making common household sounds a big secret - mysticism. Selling water down by the river. For example, the mono syllable OM is not even a mantra, or at most a mantra by courtesy only. The mono syllable OM is not included in the Rig Veda - it was probably made up by a fakir who was stoned out on cannibis indica. If there were any Hindu tantras or bija mantras they would have been mentioned by the Adi Shankara, Vallabha, Ramanuja, or Madhva. The so-called maha-mantra espoused by Chaitanya is just a collection so many words from Sanskrit grammar books - nothing esoteric at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" > wrote: > > > > I think that the advanced techniques in TM where additional > > syllables are added to the mantra are not as powerful as the basic > > TM technique. > > > > The reason I say this is because in the basic TM technique one is > > meditating twice daily with the purest, most intense form of a > > mantra. > > > > Over 20 years ago, I introduced a friend to TM. He took to it like > a > > duck to water, and made many very positive changes in his life. > > > > During the last 10 years he got two advanced techniques, and then > > about 2 years ago stopped TM completely. > > > > I asked why, as I noticed he wasn't his usual happy self. He told > me > > that he never transcended since getting the advanced techniques, > and > > felt that his meditation was no longer working! > > > > As he told me his mantra, in fact he now tells everyone his mantra, > > and openly mocks TM as a complete con job his anger of course. > > > > His original mantra was shiring pronounced something like shear-ing. > > > > After two advanced techniques his new mantra was Shree Shring > > Namah note that the shiring was contracted back to shring. > > > > I suggested to him that he return to his original mantra, and start > > meditating again, but no way meditation is no longer part of his > > life! > > > > Sometime back I discovered the meaning of my mantra, and heard an > > audio of it on this site - > > > > http://www.sanskrit- > > sanscrito.com.ar/english/sanskrit_sacredmantras/sacredmantras1.html > > > > I feel a whole lot better knowing who my Ishta Devata is, and what > > the energy of her mantra is for. > > It has not affected the effortlessness of my meditations, if > > anything it has enhanced it. > > > > Namaste, > > > > Billy > > > > > ** > > A lot of people got their advanced techniques too early, which is > probably why the advanced techniques were de-emphasized for many > years (I'm quite sure that people tended to falsely answer the > questions in the advanced technique interview out of ambition or out > of delusion about their experiences). The analogy used in talking > about advanced techniques was that of a gardener tending to a plant: > fertilize the plant too early or at the wrong time, and you could > slow the development of the plant. > > The advanced techniques were intended to slow down transcendence, to > allow people to develop familiarity with the subtle levels of life on > the way to the transcendent, thus enabling a richer experience when > Cosmic Consciousness was gained, but slowing down the growth of those > people who were not really stress-free enough to benefit from > advanced techniques. > > So your friend could have gotten the advanced techniques too early, > but possibly he was just doomed to be crunched by this miserable > Kaliyuga environment anyway regardless of the timeliness of the > advanced techniques, which does not allow people to be happy. > Stronger meditators (those whose awareness is developed enough to > withstand the anti-happiness environment) keep on with TM through > thick and thin; weaker meditators will just have to wait on the > sidelines until Satyuga rushes in, and maybe they'll stick around... Sounds right to me!
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bhairitu wrote: > > My guru has had to undo the damage that people got > > from just picking up some mantra from a book. > > > Apparently your guru is a mere retired pilot from the > Indian Air Force - hardly someone who would be knowing > anything about Tantricism in downtown Oakland. > > In fact ALL bija mantras originate from books - that's > what the Tantras are - books of bija mantras and > techniques. ALL the mantras are included in the > Vedic literature. > > > Indiscriminately given mantras can make someone > > insane. Playing around with mantras without the > > proper training can be like playing with fire. > > > This is funny. Some people actually believe that > repeating non-sense syllables will bring them closer > to enlightenment. This must be the Age of Kali! > > > Even then most gurus stick with what they've > > > It's just like selling water down by the river. > > > learned through tradition. > > > Otherwise, the bija mantras would just be made up > by con men, snake charmers, babas and fakirs in > order to delude the public. > > Bija mantras have no semantic meaning - you won't find > a single bija mantra in any standard Sanskrit lexicon. > > Probably not one person, in the whole history of mankind, > has ever been enlightened by repeating gibberish. You mean the powerful goo-goo gaa-gaa mantra? Agreed!
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > biosoundbill wrote: > > From your experience, am I correct in saying that > > `Om Shreem Maha Lakshmiyei Swaha' would be the most > > powerful of all 3 meditation mantras? > > > Strictly speaking, none of these phrases you mention > are actual bija mantras. Shri is an Sanskrit honorific; > Maha is Sanskrit for great; Lakshmiyei is straight out of > the Puranas, a personal name popular all over India; and > Swaha is the pop-sound of a two stroke motor rikshaw, > heard all over New Delhi. Ha, ha...
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A longer mantra cultures the mind at deeper levels. The short bij > mantra bobs up and down. It is not like a rock but more like a > basketball being dribbled. But the longer mantra keeps you at a deep > level for longer periods of time. Unfortunately on the airplane trip > home after TTC where MMY gave out the advanced techniques about 2/3's of > those who got advanced techniques couldn't remember what they were > given. I had two versions in my mind: the correct one and one shorter > but didn't know which was right. I went on for years switching between > one and the other with different results. I didn't care much for that > uncertainty and even wrote two mantra check letters to MMY but never got > anything back. > Rather than making an absolute statement that would clearly appeal to TMers, wouldn't it be fairer to say 'in some simple forms of meditation using mental repetition of mantra a longer mantra can culture the mind at deeper levels. A short bija mantra can sometimes bob up and down.' Otherwise you are ignoring the fact that some yogis will use a bija and trace it's component parts to beyond the mind and to the deepest absorptions (something never witnessed in TM meditators). Likewise other lay people may just use a long mantra in a more discursive fashion (consider 'Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God..etc.' as an English example or Om Mani Padme Hum superstitiously repeated by thousands of TIbetans). Your statement is not absolutely true, only conditionally true.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Hi Richard, Lets agree to differ. I fully understand what the word 'Sri' and sometimes 'Shri' means, it's used as a respectful affix to mantras etc. In the mantra Om Shrim Mahalakshmiyei Swaha Rough Translation: 'Om and salutations to that feminine energy which bestows all manner of wealth, and for which Shrim is the seed' Thomas pronounces the bija Shrim as Shreem to rhyme with dream in this mantra,and he explained to me that this is how they pronounce that seed mantra in the South of India,and the same seed mantra is pronounced as Shring or Shrim in the North. You obviously don't agree with me and that's fine. May I suggest that you contact Thomas who is respected as an expert in Sanskrit mantra. His email is- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > biosoundbill wrote: > > It's not Shri, but Shreem which is the way they > > pronounce the Bija shrIM in the South of India. > > > The Sanskrit word Shri is not a bija mantra, Bill, > that was my point, anyway you pronpounce it. It's a > word found in most standard Sanskrit lexicons - it's > a common name used an an honorific all over India. > > > It's Shring or sometimes Shrim (thats 'sh'and rim > > as in the rim of a wheel) in the North of India. > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > Strictly speaking, none of these phrases you mention > > > are actual bija mantras. Shri is an Sanskrit honorific; > > > Maha is Sanskrit for great; Lakshmiyei is straight out of > > > the Puranas, a personal name popular all over India; and > > > Swaha is the pop-sound of a two stroke motor rikshaw, > > > heard all over New Delhi. > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Sal Sunshine wrote: > U, oh, here we go again..."Muh HAR shee" anyone?? :) > Uh, no, it's Marshy, Sal. > > It's not Shri, but Shreem which is the way they > pronounce the Bija shrIM in the South of India. > > > > It's Shring or sometimes Shrim (thats 'sh'and rim > > as in the rim of a wheel) in the North of India. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
biosoundbill wrote: > It's not Shri, but Shreem which is the way they > pronounce the Bija shrIM in the South of India. > The Sanskrit word Shri is not a bija mantra, Bill, that was my point, anyway you pronpounce it. It's a word found in most standard Sanskrit lexicons - it's a common name used an an honorific all over India. > It's Shring or sometimes Shrim (thats 'sh'and rim > as in the rim of a wheel) in the North of India. > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > Strictly speaking, none of these phrases you mention > > are actual bija mantras. Shri is an Sanskrit honorific; > > Maha is Sanskrit for great; Lakshmiyei is straight out of > > the Puranas, a personal name popular all over India; and > > Swaha is the pop-sound of a two stroke motor rikshaw, > > heard all over New Delhi. > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
On Oct 18, 2007, at 2:56 PM, biosoundbill wrote: It's not Shri, but Shreem which is the way they pronounce the Bija shrIM in the South of India. It's Shring or sometimes Shrim(thats 'sh'and rim as in the rim of a wheel)in the North of India. U, oh, here we go again..."Muh HAR shee" anyone?? :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
It's not Shri, but Shreem which is the way they pronounce the Bija shrIM in the South of India. It's Shring or sometimes Shrim(thats 'sh'and rim as in the rim of a wheel)in the North of India. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > biosoundbill wrote: > > From your experience, am I correct in saying that > > `Om Shreem Maha Lakshmiyei Swaha' would be the most > > powerful of all 3 meditation mantras? > > > Strictly speaking, none of these phrases you mention > are actual bija mantras. Shri is an Sanskrit honorific; > Maha is Sanskrit for great; Lakshmiyei is straight out of > the Puranas, a personal name popular all over India; and > Swaha is the pop-sound of a two stroke motor rikshaw, > heard all over New Delhi. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
BillyG. wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" >> > wrote: > >>> I think that the advanced techniques in TM where additional >>> syllables are added to the mantra are not as powerful as the basic >>> TM technique. >>> >>> The reason I say this is because in the basic TM technique one is >>> meditating twice daily with the purest, most intense form of a >>> mantra. >>> >>> >> I would disagree. The full dharani, the "chain" of mantra and it's >> > bija is the most profound > >> expression of mantra. One is the seed and one is the "tree". It is >> > only then that we can > >> differentiate and experience the different levels of the mantra >> > (vyapini, unmana, samana, etc.) > >> consciously and under will. Failing that we never completely >> > transcend the mind but instead > >> simply arrive at what appears like a thought-free state. But vrittis >> > are still present at this > >> rudimentary state. This thought-free state can be quite addictive >> > and people tend to get > >> stuck there because of this. It's also important that the initate >> > has the dhyana-vidhi of the > >> devata as that potentializes the ability to actualize the >> > mantra-shakti and communicate with > >> that energy as all-pervasive outside of meditation. >> > > Well, yes and no, that may be intellectually true but *experientially* > unless the meditator is advanced it can have a slowing down of > transcending per my experience! C. Lutes used to explain it like the > difference between a leaf falling from a tree (advanced) and a rock > falling to the bottom of a lake (simple mantra), again depending on > your level of advancement. > > I also noticed a difference in my meditation right after the third > technique-I went back to the original plus one which worked best for > me! I also feel very comfortable with the devatas associated with the > mantras. TM, IMO is not a diksha Initiation but a common power/sound > vibration Initiation, the power is the sound itself and it serves > merely as a vehicle.. A longer mantra cultures the mind at deeper levels. The short bij mantra bobs up and down. It is not like a rock but more like a basketball being dribbled. But the longer mantra keeps you at a deep level for longer periods of time. Unfortunately on the airplane trip home after TTC where MMY gave out the advanced techniques about 2/3's of those who got advanced techniques couldn't remember what they were given. I had two versions in my mind: the correct one and one shorter but didn't know which was right. I went on for years switching between one and the other with different results. I didn't care much for that uncertainty and even wrote two mantra check letters to MMY but never got anything back.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Bhairitu wrote: > My guru has had to undo the damage that people got > from just picking up some mantra from a book. > Apparently your guru is a mere retired pilot from the Indian Air Force - hardly someone who would be knowing anything about Tantricism in downtown Oakland. In fact ALL bija mantras originate from books - that's what the Tantras are - books of bija mantras and techniques. ALL the mantras are included in the Vedic literature. > Indiscriminately given mantras can make someone > insane. Playing around with mantras without the > proper training can be like playing with fire. > This is funny. Some people actually believe that repeating non-sense syllables will bring them closer to enlightenment. This must be the Age of Kali! > Even then most gurus stick with what they've > It's just like selling water down by the river. > learned through tradition. > Otherwise, the bija mantras would just be made up by con men, snake charmers, babas and fakirs in order to delude the public. Bija mantras have no semantic meaning - you won't find a single bija mantra in any standard Sanskrit lexicon. Probably not one person, in the whole history of mankind, has ever been enlightened by repeating gibberish.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
biosoundbill wrote: > From your experience, am I correct in saying that > `Om Shreem Maha Lakshmiyei Swaha' would be the most > powerful of all 3 meditation mantras? > Strictly speaking, none of these phrases you mention are actual bija mantras. Shri is an Sanskrit honorific; Maha is Sanskrit for great; Lakshmiyei is straight out of the Puranas, a personal name popular all over India; and Swaha is the pop-sound of a two stroke motor rikshaw, heard all over New Delhi.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
kaladevi93 wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Namaskaram Kala Devi, >> >> I'll use a non TM mantra as an example! >> >> Let's say the bija is `Shreem' for the basic TM technique. >> >> Let's say `Om Shreem Namaha' for an advanced technique. >> >> Finally let's say `Om Shreem Maha Lakshmiyei Swaha' for a more >> advanced technique. >> >> From your experience, am I correct in saying that `Om Shreem Maha >> Lakshmiyei Swaha' would be the most powerful of all 3 meditation >> mantras? >> > > > Not necessarily, as mantras depend on the disposition of the student, most > especially the > students mind. There are some techniques utilizing merely a bija mantra which > truly go > beyond the mind (but there are specific techniques in addition to the mantra > in order to do > so). > > Now if, for example, the Lakshmi mantra IS appropriate for a certain student > and they > know the appropriate techniques to use that mantra fully, it could render > full results. But > merely giving out mantras for mental repetition, comparitively there could be > little or no > difference. However if paying wads of money made one think they had something > more > special or important, the change in attitude could affect the students > experience of that > mantra, as silly as that sounds, because the resolve and intent has changed. > > In addition to the mental use of mantra there are hosts of other techniques > which can be > applied in addition to or with the mantra. Often as the experience of > subtlety of mantra > refines, techniques will refine to take the mind deeper, beyond where the > mantra > *appears* to end and to allow the meditator to go much further, deeper and > longer > (sounds like porn! :-) ). > > Adhikara mantras, mantras which are chosen based on the student, are always > favorable > to mantras merely given by puja. With an indiscrimantly given mantra, there > is always the > potential for something to go wrong. > > Kala Devi My guru has had to undo the damage that people got from just picking up some mantra from a book. Indiscriminately given mantras can make someone insane. Playing around with mantras without the proper training can be like playing with fire. Even then most gurus stick with what they've learned through tradition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Thnaks Kala --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" wrote: > > > > Namaskaram Kala Devi, > > > > I'll use a non TM mantra as an example! > > > > Let's say the bija is `Shreem' for the basic TM technique. > > > > Let's say `Om Shreem Namaha' for an advanced technique. > > > > Finally let's say `Om Shreem Maha Lakshmiyei Swaha' for a more > > advanced technique. > > > > From your experience, am I correct in saying that `Om Shreem Maha > > Lakshmiyei Swaha' would be the most powerful of all 3 meditation > > mantras? > > > Not necessarily, as mantras depend on the disposition of the student, most especially the > students mind. There are some techniques utilizing merely a bija mantra which truly go > beyond the mind (but there are specific techniques in addition to the mantra in order to do > so). > > Now if, for example, the Lakshmi mantra IS appropriate for a certain student and they > know the appropriate techniques to use that mantra fully, it could render full results. But > merely giving out mantras for mental repetition, comparitively there could be little or no > difference. However if paying wads of money made one think they had something more > special or important, the change in attitude could affect the students experience of that > mantra, as silly as that sounds, because the resolve and intent has changed. > > In addition to the mental use of mantra there are hosts of other techniques which can be > applied in addition to or with the mantra. Often as the experience of subtlety of mantra > refines, techniques will refine to take the mind deeper, beyond where the mantra > *appears* to end and to allow the meditator to go much further, deeper and longer > (sounds like porn! :-) ). > > Adhikara mantras, mantras which are chosen based on the student, are always favorable > to mantras merely given by puja. With an indiscrimantly given mantra, there is always the > potential for something to go wrong. > > Kala Devi >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Namaskaram Kala Devi, > > I'll use a non TM mantra as an example! > > Let's say the bija is `Shreem' for the basic TM technique. > > Let's say `Om Shreem Namaha' for an advanced technique. > > Finally let's say `Om Shreem Maha Lakshmiyei Swaha' for a more > advanced technique. > > From your experience, am I correct in saying that `Om Shreem Maha > Lakshmiyei Swaha' would be the most powerful of all 3 meditation > mantras? Not necessarily, as mantras depend on the disposition of the student, most especially the students mind. There are some techniques utilizing merely a bija mantra which truly go beyond the mind (but there are specific techniques in addition to the mantra in order to do so). Now if, for example, the Lakshmi mantra IS appropriate for a certain student and they know the appropriate techniques to use that mantra fully, it could render full results. But merely giving out mantras for mental repetition, comparitively there could be little or no difference. However if paying wads of money made one think they had something more special or important, the change in attitude could affect the students experience of that mantra, as silly as that sounds, because the resolve and intent has changed. In addition to the mental use of mantra there are hosts of other techniques which can be applied in addition to or with the mantra. Often as the experience of subtlety of mantra refines, techniques will refine to take the mind deeper, beyond where the mantra *appears* to end and to allow the meditator to go much further, deeper and longer (sounds like porn! :-) ). Adhikara mantras, mantras which are chosen based on the student, are always favorable to mantras merely given by puja. With an indiscrimantly given mantra, there is always the potential for something to go wrong. Kala Devi
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
Namaskaram Kala Devi, I'll use a non TM mantra as an example! Let's say the bija is `Shreem' for the basic TM technique. Let's say `Om Shreem Namaha' for an advanced technique. Finally let's say `Om Shreem Maha Lakshmiyei Swaha' for a more advanced technique. >From your experience, am I correct in saying that `Om Shreem Maha Lakshmiyei Swaha' would be the most powerful of all 3 meditation mantras? Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think that the advanced techniques in TM where additional > > > > syllables are added to the mantra are not as powerful as the basic > > > > TM technique. > > > > > > > > The reason I say this is because in the basic TM technique one is > > > > meditating twice daily with the purest, most intense form of a > > > > mantra. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would disagree. The full dharani, the "chain" of mantra and it's > > bija is the most profound > > > expression of mantra. One is the seed and one is the "tree". It is > > only then that we can > > > differentiate and experience the different levels of the mantra > > (vyapini, unmana, samana, etc.) > > > consciously and under will. Failing that we never completely > > transcend the mind but instead > > > simply arrive at what appears like a thought-free state. But vrittis > > are still present at this > > > rudimentary state. This thought-free state can be quite addictive > > and people tend to get > > > stuck there because of this. It's also important that the initate > > has the dhyana-vidhi of the > > > devata as that potentializes the ability to actualize the > > mantra-shakti and communicate with > > > that energy as all-pervasive outside of meditation. > > > > Well, yes and no, that may be intellectually true but *experientially* > > unless the meditator is advanced it can have a slowing down of > > transcending per my experience! > > It's not an intellectual fact, it IS an experiential one. > > But you'd have to have a means of comparison and since this is not the type of mantra that > is given in TM, you would need to experience a different practice. Mostly you see > streamlined teachings being given out by the mass-market meditation vendors. TM > epitomizes that approach. You do not always get what you pay for; personal instruction > will always be the superior vehicle (but at one time TM might have been a good starter > practice). The way TM was instructed years ago will only serve to plumb the grosser levels > of mind but the technique is definitely not an unmana technique, i.e. one that goes truly > beyond the mind. If that was the case (that TM took you beyond the mind, etc.) you would > see people going into very deep absorptions for long periods of time. As far as I am aware, > that is not the case. If it was I'm sure they'd advertise it!!! :-) > > Kala Devi >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" > wrote: > > > > > > I think that the advanced techniques in TM where additional > > > syllables are added to the mantra are not as powerful as the basic > > > TM technique. > > > > > > The reason I say this is because in the basic TM technique one is > > > meditating twice daily with the purest, most intense form of a > > > mantra. > > > > > > > > > I would disagree. The full dharani, the "chain" of mantra and it's > bija is the most profound > > expression of mantra. One is the seed and one is the "tree". It is > only then that we can > > differentiate and experience the different levels of the mantra > (vyapini, unmana, samana, etc.) > > consciously and under will. Failing that we never completely > transcend the mind but instead > > simply arrive at what appears like a thought-free state. But vrittis > are still present at this > > rudimentary state. This thought-free state can be quite addictive > and people tend to get > > stuck there because of this. It's also important that the initate > has the dhyana-vidhi of the > > devata as that potentializes the ability to actualize the > mantra-shakti and communicate with > > that energy as all-pervasive outside of meditation. > > Well, yes and no, that may be intellectually true but *experientially* > unless the meditator is advanced it can have a slowing down of > transcending per my experience! It's not an intellectual fact, it IS an experiential one. But you'd have to have a means of comparison and since this is not the type of mantra that is given in TM, you would need to experience a different practice. Mostly you see streamlined teachings being given out by the mass-market meditation vendors. TM epitomizes that approach. You do not always get what you pay for; personal instruction will always be the superior vehicle (but at one time TM might have been a good starter practice). The way TM was instructed years ago will only serve to plumb the grosser levels of mind but the technique is definitely not an unmana technique, i.e. one that goes truly beyond the mind. If that was the case (that TM took you beyond the mind, etc.) you would see people going into very deep absorptions for long periods of time. As far as I am aware, that is not the case. If it was I'm sure they'd advertise it!!! :-) Kala Devi
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" wrote: > > > > I think that the advanced techniques in TM where additional > > syllables are added to the mantra are not as powerful as the basic > > TM technique. > > > > The reason I say this is because in the basic TM technique one is > > meditating twice daily with the purest, most intense form of a > > mantra. > > > > > I would disagree. The full dharani, the "chain" of mantra and it's bija is the most profound > expression of mantra. One is the seed and one is the "tree". It is only then that we can > differentiate and experience the different levels of the mantra (vyapini, unmana, samana, etc.) > consciously and under will. Failing that we never completely transcend the mind but instead > simply arrive at what appears like a thought-free state. But vrittis are still present at this > rudimentary state. This thought-free state can be quite addictive and people tend to get > stuck there because of this. It's also important that the initate has the dhyana-vidhi of the > devata as that potentializes the ability to actualize the mantra-shakti and communicate with > that energy as all-pervasive outside of meditation. Well, yes and no, that may be intellectually true but *experientially* unless the meditator is advanced it can have a slowing down of transcending per my experience! C. Lutes used to explain it like the difference between a leaf falling from a tree (advanced) and a rock falling to the bottom of a lake (simple mantra), again depending on your level of advancement. I also noticed a difference in my meditation right after the third technique-I went back to the original plus one which worked best for me! I also feel very comfortable with the devatas associated with the mantras. TM, IMO is not a diksha Initiation but a common power/sound vibration Initiation, the power is the sound itself and it serves merely as a vehicle... >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that the advanced techniques in TM where additional > syllables are added to the mantra are not as powerful as the basic > TM technique. > Advanced techniques cost the same as TM ($2,500 I think) and there are probably more meditators learning advanced techniques than new people learning TM, so from the TMO's perspective they're more powerful.
