yogaś citta vṛtti nirodhaḥ
The difficult word, of course, is vṛtti. Yoga is the cessation of the vṛtti of the citta, mind.
The ways in which this has been explained have mounted up like dunes in a great desert. Do any of the explanations work (help us produce useful results)? Patañjali himself offers explanation in the following sutras, but just why his explanations seem to go unnoticed or unexplored remains a mystery to me. Many people seem to think he is saying that yoga is stopping the mind! Yet, it is perfectly clear that he is saying that yoga is stopping the vṛtti OF the mind.
One way to understand vṛtti is through a simple example: suppose you are looking through a kaleidescope. You can stop the light/citta/mind easily enough. But then what do you have? Nothing. It’s very difficult to make do with nothing.
Or, you can take the kaleidescope away and you are left with light/citta/mind. This is much more useful, especially in the dark. Yoga is taking away, removing, just dropping like something useless the distractions to the light.
All well and good. You don’t stop thought, you stop the distractions that obscure the thought. What is thought? For me, Mahesh has been woefully inadequate in clarifying this. We all, of course, say we experience thought. No mystery there. However, what are we experiencing and what are we calling “thought”?
If we remove the kaleidescope/vṛtti then what remains? We can make vague references to consciousness, but what is that? What is it that tells us about what we see when we look through the kaleidescope? Awareness, I think, is something relatively uncomplicated here. How do I know I am aware? Obviously, I only need to ask myself what I am aware OF.
When I take away the thing I am aware OF, then there is just awareness. When I let the vṛtti subside, then what is left? Awareness.
Yoga is letting the kaleidescope of the mind simply fall away, yoga is abandoning the obscurations to awareness. “Letting” is an important word here. We are not “trying” to do anything, to make something happen or cease happening. That is built-in, automatic and something even Mahesh had to recognize in his checking procedure.
We notice quiet and silence. It is just there. It always has been.
We do not have to add any more steps by adding some new distraction, some “better” kaleidescope. Some name of a god, as if that somehow greased the wheels of some mechanism or some meaningless word, which itself seems kind of meaningless when you think it through.
What we really and truly need, we have always had.
We only have to rest in the awareness of our own awareness. No big deal, yet a very big deal, indeed. Almost all of life’s activity is based upon what we are aware OF as opposed to awareness itself. Yes, we have unknowingly let awareness itself become obscured, like dust gathering on a surface as opposed to awareness itself unobscured being the primary mover in the processes of living our lives.
Cultivating yoga, then is a really good thing. We were born with awareness. We don’t need Mahesh’s more and more obscuring it. We only need to be aware of it, just as it is.
There is no other purpose in writing this than to demonstrate how simple Patañjali’s teaching is and how unnecessary the sand dunes of Maheshism are. Paul has beautifully demonstrated his understanding of Patañjali and Hugo has confirmed that he does not find it unrewarding.
The real secret is that there is no secret. You have always known the secret, you just didn't know you knew! Now, you do.
Showing posts with label Beacon Light of the Himalayas and Paul Mason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beacon Light of the Himalayas and Paul Mason. Show all posts
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Dr. Benson and the Faith Factor
I remember when Dr. Benson was one of the performing acts in the TMO circus. Of course, then, it was called an SCI Symposium. Dr. Benson was brilliant. I remember enjoying his very extensive talk. And I remember that he wasn't interested in being one of Mahesh's "acts" (like Orm-Johnson and Hagelin, et al.). It must also be noted that Dr. Benson specifically did not learn TM so that it would not interfere with his opinions or prejudice his research, I do not believe that this is something that the people who have turned out the 600+ TM "scientific studies" are able to legitimately affirm as part of their research protocol.
Then, of course, heresy of heresies, Dr. Benson took Mahesh up on his suggestion to study TM. I'm sure the current take on this by the TMO is extensively edited. But it was indeed Mahesh who recommended that Dr. Benson study the results of TM.
Dr. Benson did just this. And for the benefit of many Dr. Benson formulated the Relaxation Response. Actually, Dr. Benson formulated a simple, natural method to elicit the relaxation response, deep but conscious rest.
The text The Relaxation Response is still a best seller and can be learned quite successfully and inexpensively from the text or from many health care facilities in the US and Canada.
I recommend, for example, http://www.vhl.org/newsletter/vhl1997/97dafait.htm as an interesting source for seeing what the basics are all about and how faith and belief influence our daily lives. As well, please take a look at the Benson-Henry Instutite for Mind Body Medicine (http://www.mbmi.org/home/).
Best wishes to all of our readers for a healthy and prosperous New Year, one free from cult thought and cult mind control.
Sudarsha and the Editors of TM-Free
Then, of course, heresy of heresies, Dr. Benson took Mahesh up on his suggestion to study TM. I'm sure the current take on this by the TMO is extensively edited. But it was indeed Mahesh who recommended that Dr. Benson study the results of TM.
Dr. Benson did just this. And for the benefit of many Dr. Benson formulated the Relaxation Response. Actually, Dr. Benson formulated a simple, natural method to elicit the relaxation response, deep but conscious rest.
The text The Relaxation Response is still a best seller and can be learned quite successfully and inexpensively from the text or from many health care facilities in the US and Canada.
I recommend, for example, http://www.vhl.org/newsletter/vhl1997/97dafait.htm as an interesting source for seeing what the basics are all about and how faith and belief influence our daily lives. As well, please take a look at the Benson-Henry Instutite for Mind Body Medicine (http://www.mbmi.org/home/).
Best wishes to all of our readers for a healthy and prosperous New Year, one free from cult thought and cult mind control.
Sudarsha and the Editors of TM-Free
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Mantras Part 2: Some thoughts preliminary to an examination of the mechanics of TM
Mahesh lied in order to sell the product I believed in. That’s a given. But I certainly believed and he certainly lied, depending on rumour and innuendo to persuade me, all of us, of not only the greatness of TM but his personal greatness as well.
But he lied and he wasn't so great, either.
We all, as far as I know, believed at one time that if that’s what it took to spread TM, then that was OK. The end justified the means because, speaking for myself, I truly, deeply, completely believed TM was the greatest gift that could be given.
Sure, I had some difficulty with the fact that anyone wanting to learn had to pay so I could give this great gift; but I managed.
I rationalized.
To this day, I firmly believe that meditation is a great and valuable gift. But is TM meditation? Is TM “great” and is it “valuable”? I want to look at this in Part 3.
It certainly is not a gift. It is an expensive commodity – one not only purchases TM like a pair of shoes, but also comes to possess something one commits to like raising a child. Except this product surreptitiously elevates you to another life-style.
Are we also to absolutely trust Mahesh when he tells us his method* is the only thing that can be called meditation? In the early days he referred to smoke, to unwinding. It was not until his meeting with Hans Selye that we discovered that we were unstressing. Didn't he understand his own method? Whose meditation is it, anyway?
Can someone “own” a method?
I have tried several different forms of meditation. BUT I am not claiming that my assessment is sufficient reason for anyone to stop what is working, or switch to something else. If you personally are happy with the results of TM or any other form of meditation, if your life is running smoothly and you are not dependent on anyone to tell you what kind of life-style is most appropriate, what life-partner you should or should not have, if you are making good decisions that are working out for you and not alienating you from family and friends, if you are not havng to get new friends to support new life-style – then you are on a path very likely appropriate for you.
TM is one of several mantra-based methods. What is special about TM as a method is THE WAY the mantra is used. I have found this way to be brilliant, highly effective in every one of the meditation methods I have tried. I do not know where Mahesh got this method, from whom he borrowed it or from whose efforts he extracted it.** I am, however, very grateful for this method. The meditation I am presently doing gives me much, much more peace, calm and insight than the TM mantra-based method did.
What is the method? Return to an awareness of the object of meditation (in the case of TM, the mantra; in the case of one of the methods practised in Theravāda Buddhism in the Thai Forest Tradition, the breath) as effortlessly as you experience the awareness of having drifted off the object.
This is simply brilliant.
My question is this: why are the results in activity so much more rewarding for me using the breath as an object than using a "meaningless sound".
The “method” is useful, but what about the “mantra”?
The mantra (a.k.a. meaningless thought, meaningless sound): Let’s look at what Mahesh said at the beginning:
We do not select any sound like mike, flower, table, pen, wall etc. because such ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not select any word at random. For our practice we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life.***
So, first we don’t want sounds that just do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind. Isn’t this in and of itself a red flag? Why wouldn’t we want sharp minds? If we had sharp minds might we detect something not in Mahesh’s best interests? That was my thought when I read this remark by Mahesh.
Like any totalitarian thinker, Mahesh would only want sharp minds from which he could cull information. Then, as he has done so often when finished with someone providing him with answers, he could send them to round and do the ‘sidhi’ program until they were no longer sharp enough to realize they were being blindsided and their work siphoned off to the credit of someone else. This requires some more discussion and I intend to get to that in Part 3.
So, we need “special” sounds that have the additional efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial to our way of life – doesn’t that suggest maintaining the status quo and feeling better about it?
Is Mahesh actually saying, as I obviously suspect he is: give me your devotion and resources and I'll make you happy. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like some grubby guy on a street corner our mothers told us to stay away from?
Then Mahesh mixes science and God. This is the scientific reason why we do not select any word at random. For our practice we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life.
How is this scientific? Is Mahesh suggesting that what he says is as valid as “science” [just because he says it]? Isn’t science based on observation, trial and error until we find what works consistently? In what way could such experiments be undertaken to find the suitable mantras of personal Gods?
What are personal Gods and how is this not a religion? (An unswered question, as far as I know.)
To me, his words suggest that you somehow get the calling card of some “god” (whatever he might or might not mean by that) or maybe you get the private, unlisted number of some god (a super-being, a fairy godmother, a notion that can only be the product of magical thinking) who then owes you? How can that possibly make sense? Again, how is this scientific?
What are personal Gods? What are Gods and who determines how they get personal? Why was this acceptable thinking? Or, as has been easily observed so consistently, the development of Maheshism resides in the repetition of the same words which finally brings acceptance, not necessarily understanding, but definitely unquestioned acceptance. Back to page one of Beacon Light of the Himalayas mind control. Mahesh was advertising "his" method as mind control.
Who was going to control whose mind, anyway? Or has that become increasingly obvious since those early days? Did he or did he not know what he was talking about then? If he did, why isn't he talking about it now? Is TM a secret religion?
In Mantras Part 3, I want to look at what the mantra is doing as opposed to what Mahesh says the mantra is doing.
--- The Notes ---
* Mahesh referred to TM as “my method” from the very beginning; this is unquestionable. You can refer to Beacon Light of the Himalayas in the related links section. But note also that he advertises on the cover of this document MIND CONTROL. Who will be controlling whose mind? It doesn’t say.
** I am suspicious that he might have conned it out of some Lama fleeing Tibet as it so closely resembles some of the teachings of Dzogchen.
*** Beacon Light of the Himalayas, page 65, published in THE MAHARISHI, by Paul Mason, 2005, [see footnote 310] pages 248-9. The complete text of Beacon is available at Paul’s web site.
Mantras Part 1
Mantras Part 3: the makings of the “TM Casualties” or what colour is your cloth becoming?
Mantras Part 4: unstressing, feeling the body and beyond
But he lied and he wasn't so great, either.
We all, as far as I know, believed at one time that if that’s what it took to spread TM, then that was OK. The end justified the means because, speaking for myself, I truly, deeply, completely believed TM was the greatest gift that could be given.
Sure, I had some difficulty with the fact that anyone wanting to learn had to pay so I could give this great gift; but I managed.
I rationalized.
To this day, I firmly believe that meditation is a great and valuable gift. But is TM meditation? Is TM “great” and is it “valuable”? I want to look at this in Part 3.
It certainly is not a gift. It is an expensive commodity – one not only purchases TM like a pair of shoes, but also comes to possess something one commits to like raising a child. Except this product surreptitiously elevates you to another life-style.
Are we also to absolutely trust Mahesh when he tells us his method* is the only thing that can be called meditation? In the early days he referred to smoke, to unwinding. It was not until his meeting with Hans Selye that we discovered that we were unstressing. Didn't he understand his own method? Whose meditation is it, anyway?
Can someone “own” a method?
I have tried several different forms of meditation. BUT I am not claiming that my assessment is sufficient reason for anyone to stop what is working, or switch to something else. If you personally are happy with the results of TM or any other form of meditation, if your life is running smoothly and you are not dependent on anyone to tell you what kind of life-style is most appropriate, what life-partner you should or should not have, if you are making good decisions that are working out for you and not alienating you from family and friends, if you are not havng to get new friends to support new life-style – then you are on a path very likely appropriate for you.
TM is one of several mantra-based methods. What is special about TM as a method is THE WAY the mantra is used. I have found this way to be brilliant, highly effective in every one of the meditation methods I have tried. I do not know where Mahesh got this method, from whom he borrowed it or from whose efforts he extracted it.** I am, however, very grateful for this method. The meditation I am presently doing gives me much, much more peace, calm and insight than the TM mantra-based method did.
What is the method? Return to an awareness of the object of meditation (in the case of TM, the mantra; in the case of one of the methods practised in Theravāda Buddhism in the Thai Forest Tradition, the breath) as effortlessly as you experience the awareness of having drifted off the object.
This is simply brilliant.
My question is this: why are the results in activity so much more rewarding for me using the breath as an object than using a "meaningless sound".
The “method” is useful, but what about the “mantra”?
The mantra (a.k.a. meaningless thought, meaningless sound): Let’s look at what Mahesh said at the beginning:
We do not select any sound like mike, flower, table, pen, wall etc. because such ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not select any word at random. For our practice we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life.***
So, first we don’t want sounds that just do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind. Isn’t this in and of itself a red flag? Why wouldn’t we want sharp minds? If we had sharp minds might we detect something not in Mahesh’s best interests? That was my thought when I read this remark by Mahesh.
Like any totalitarian thinker, Mahesh would only want sharp minds from which he could cull information. Then, as he has done so often when finished with someone providing him with answers, he could send them to round and do the ‘sidhi’ program until they were no longer sharp enough to realize they were being blindsided and their work siphoned off to the credit of someone else. This requires some more discussion and I intend to get to that in Part 3.
So, we need “special” sounds that have the additional efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial to our way of life – doesn’t that suggest maintaining the status quo and feeling better about it?
Is Mahesh actually saying, as I obviously suspect he is: give me your devotion and resources and I'll make you happy. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like some grubby guy on a street corner our mothers told us to stay away from?
Then Mahesh mixes science and God. This is the scientific reason why we do not select any word at random. For our practice we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life.
How is this scientific? Is Mahesh suggesting that what he says is as valid as “science” [just because he says it]? Isn’t science based on observation, trial and error until we find what works consistently? In what way could such experiments be undertaken to find the suitable mantras of personal Gods?
What are personal Gods and how is this not a religion? (An unswered question, as far as I know.)
To me, his words suggest that you somehow get the calling card of some “god” (whatever he might or might not mean by that) or maybe you get the private, unlisted number of some god (a super-being, a fairy godmother, a notion that can only be the product of magical thinking) who then owes you? How can that possibly make sense? Again, how is this scientific?
What are personal Gods? What are Gods and who determines how they get personal? Why was this acceptable thinking? Or, as has been easily observed so consistently, the development of Maheshism resides in the repetition of the same words which finally brings acceptance, not necessarily understanding, but definitely unquestioned acceptance. Back to page one of Beacon Light of the Himalayas mind control. Mahesh was advertising "his" method as mind control.
Who was going to control whose mind, anyway? Or has that become increasingly obvious since those early days? Did he or did he not know what he was talking about then? If he did, why isn't he talking about it now? Is TM a secret religion?
In Mantras Part 3, I want to look at what the mantra is doing as opposed to what Mahesh says the mantra is doing.
--- The Notes ---
* Mahesh referred to TM as “my method” from the very beginning; this is unquestionable. You can refer to Beacon Light of the Himalayas in the related links section. But note also that he advertises on the cover of this document MIND CONTROL. Who will be controlling whose mind? It doesn’t say.
** I am suspicious that he might have conned it out of some Lama fleeing Tibet as it so closely resembles some of the teachings of Dzogchen.
*** Beacon Light of the Himalayas, page 65, published in THE MAHARISHI, by Paul Mason, 2005, [see footnote 310] pages 248-9. The complete text of Beacon is available at Paul’s web site.
Mantras Part 1
Mantras Part 3: the makings of the “TM Casualties” or what colour is your cloth becoming?
Mantras Part 4: unstressing, feeling the body and beyond
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)