"Robert" wrote: > The only problem with that is, that the technique, [[mindfulness]] just keeps the mind on a superficial level, without transcending and getting the breath to stillness...and it doesn't explain the different states of consciousness, and so much more...so, in my humble oppinion, TM is far superior to this 'mindfullness' stuff. > Mindfulness, turns out to be 'mindlessness', as one is always off on a thought or emotion, and never transcends the field of thought of emotion...there is no vehicle to produce finer levels of thought, and therefore, like Psychanalysis keeps one from ever transcending thought and emotions. > R.G.
Robert, I worry about you. I read your posts, and everytime, I wonder if you have ever, say, reread anything you've written before you post it. It all seems just off the top of your head. You are blabbing propaganda -- I would suggest you take your above statement one piece at a time and try to actually, you know, see if it means anything to ya. Here, I'll do some of the spade work for ya. Like: "the technique, [[mindfulness]] just keeps the mind on a superficial level" Here we see that you are asserting that there exists a technique called "mindfulness" about which everyone reading here will have clarity. As if. (Vaj, don't bother, once again, showing that there's a hundred ways to do something mental that could be in the set called "mindfulness," Robert isn't listening.) Robert, is there any chance in hell you could define "superficial level?" Don't you see the elitism in that phrase? Don't you understand the great insult such a phrase would be if, say, you told the Dali Lama that his mind was merely residing in superficiality after decades of him exploring within? How could anyone anywhere ever think that they can know about another's mindfulness, let alone it's "level" without, you know, BEING THAT PERSON? And, Robert, have you been tested by all the machines and the analysis of the TMO "scientists?" Is your level so deep that you can now decide that others are shallow? Or, are you repeating words you've heard from "on high" and not really trying to get solid on the definitions of the words you use? Like: "without transcending and getting the breath to stillness..." I've posted here about the four ways to understand the word "transcending." Did you bother to consider it? I doubt it. Yet, here you are using that word as if it had only one meaning and that it can only be understood to be valid if breathing is affected when transcending is happening. Um, just for your information, didja ever notice that Maharishi gave us more than one way to control the breath? Is pranyama a form of transcending to you? It is to me, but if it's done without using a mantra, would you honor it as a valid spiritual technique? I agree that stilling the breath is a good thing if it naturally occurs, but, my friend Vaj would scold me for believing that since there's some serious conceptual wait-just-a-damned-minute-there-bub aspects of this phenomenon that he thinks one might want to chew on for a while before committing to stillness of breath as a always-positive thingy. I disagree with him about this, but I have yet to say that he's wrong, because I haven't studied this concept enough to have clarity -- only then will I grab Vaj's arm and swing him around to face my, er, PSYCHIC WRATH -- Oh, yeah, I'm the scorcher, uh huh, uh huh, I like it. Like: [[mindfulness]] "it doesn't explain the different states of consciousness, You come out with a concept that there are [[seven]] states of consciousness, but you seem to never have heard Maharishi talking about the 16 calas and that Guru Dev had to die to get to the 16th "level." And you don't seem to have any precise grasp of the word "consciousness" -- can you please tell us what the differences are (if any) between the following words? "Consciousnes, amness, pure being, transcendent, awareness, mind, soul, witness." I don't expect you'll answer in any scholarly fashion, because the above question was never a topic of any lecture I ever heard from Maharishi -- and I heard (estimate) over 1,000 lectures by Maharishi, and he never educated me about any of the above distinctions. In his Gita, he's all over the map when he uses these words without any precision. But, you're sure, aren't you, that you have it locked down tight about this word "consciousness?" Like: "Mindfulness, turns out to be 'mindlessness', as one is always off on a thought or emotion, and never transcends the field of thought of emotion..." How fucking arrogant can you get? If someone is having a thought -- they're mindless? WTF? You take thousands of other forms of thinking and clump them together into one word and, without a hint of precision defining, you, Robert, are staking your image here on parroted words. Do you really want to only spew the pap you were fed? With the above statement, you dismiss virtually all religious and spiritual techniques of the world. All the history of thought is tossed by you as worthless explorations that could never have yielded clarity about the human mind's potentials. You're coming off here, and I'm serious, as a Pilgram with a blunderbuss who is comfortable blowing the head off of any Native American if even the words "Earth Mother" or "Brother Deer"comes out of his mouth. Your arrogance is a blindness so complete that it is the basis of, well, anything. Tyrants, sociopaths, serial killers have this in common with you. Like: "there is no vehicle to produce finer levels of thought, and therefore, like Psychanalysis keeps one from ever transcending thought and emotions." As a father of four kids, let me say, I've seen every one of them transcend before my eyes. I've seen them all go deep within with their eyes open -- just pausing for a moment or two to delight in the falling inwards. Toddlers transcend all the time. Whatever "vehicle" they used worked just fine....looked to me that they found something while, er, being mindful, and just grokked that process down to its seed form in a flash of INsight. I have NEVER met a kid who didn't transcend like this -- not just now and then, but so often as to begger the imagination that they could ever find time to do "real life." Anything is a vehicle for kids, but you, with your holy of holy mantras, are going to think that they're lost in superficial thought instead of seeing that they are masters of the depths. Don't you think the kids will see your disdain and have to process the fact that an adult invalidates their ability to KNOW? Did you ever have children? They transcend without even having the cognative grasp of the concept of transcending. There's your magic. Mystics everywhere rediscover this ability as they regain their childhood innocence. And, geeze, Freud is spinning in his grave. Freud was all about getting a patient into clarity about the finest thoughts and feelings....even using "vehicles" called "memories of dreams" that they focused on and took to subtler realms of their mentality. Edg
