www.dharmaoverground.org Guest

Hi folks, this is my first post.

My first meditation experience was with TM when I was a teenager in the early 80s. Here’s how it went for me:

After the ‘puja’, I was asked to repeat the mantra aloud, then silently. Other than that, the main instruction was NOT to ‘concentrate’. Within a couple of minutes, the mantra had ceased to be an auditory memory and was more like a neon calligraphic squiggle on the borderline between visual, auditory memory and pure concept. Main thing seemed to be to avoid concentrating on it too hard, or it would disappear. All I had to do was follow it as it transformed, faded, disappeared and reappeared over the 20 minute period. Pretty soon I hit some bliss, and the ‘falling’ feeling that I had been told to expect, which was called ‘transcending’.

This success was maybe partly ‘beginners luck’ and influenced by the puja, but I was able to repeat it somewhat reliably. However, my experiences did seem to plateau and for some reason, I eventually quit meditating in this way or any way until I got into anapanasati years later. I think my rapid disenchantment with the TM organization reflected back on the practice. Also, I think partly I discounted the practice because it was so easy and pleasant and maybe (reading Daniel's book) this was a mistake. I'd gotten the idea that worthwhile meditation should be hard work.

So I’m wondering about all of this and how it relates to MCTB… The experience with the mantra as described above surely qualifies as a nimitta based on most descriptions, and was achieved very quickly and easily by a total beginner. Compared with this, I find anapanasati rather slow going, and I’m still not sure I’ve gone as far with it as I did with those first sessions of TM. Also, the (paradoxical?) instruction not to concentrate is interesting, as this does seem to be a type of shamatha practice as far as I can tell. With regard to the plateau effect, the duration of TM is controlled at 20 mins and I was too much of a rule-follower to try extending it to an hour or more. Maybe things like TM, candle-flame practice are easy for the beginner to grasp as you really can't go wrong. So what's the limitation?

Thoughts?

Paul

Thanks for this Florian.

With regard to "Have you tried to use your old mantra (or some other word) to enter a concentration state?"

To give a bit more detail to the question, I think I'm trying to clarify the type of experience that I and many others had with TM - is it in effect a concentration state? (Regardless of the fact that the main instruction is 'don't concentrate'). I'm considering the possibility that I've had more progress with it than with hte more conventional concentration methods and should give it another whirl.

My experience with it was a bit different from other word-based meditation such as 'In - Out' or 'Bu - dho'. For one thing, the mantras are meaningless and quite musical syllables that (for me) soon become quite subtle. No connection with the body - more like observing a thought as it fades away.

it going on largely on its own (Mind&Body)?[/quote]

Yes - in fact the TM teacher specifically referred to this and I think it's the point of the 'don't concentrate' advice.

Yes and this was also referenced in the training, that it would come and go, move around, all fine.

No - but cessation of breath is talked about as one of the symptoms of 'transcending'

Not in my experience

Possibly... the whole expereince is somewhat synaesthesic (?) for me - different sensory modalities seem interwoven as light/sound/spaciousness

With regard to limitations: I guess that's a response to my experience which when you think about it wasn't much different from many TM people including the Beatles: Initial enthusiasm, fast results, disillusion, eventually moving onto some other practice. I wonder if this is inherent in the practice itself.

Breath meditation can be rather challenging. It might be harder for you to become absorbed in the breath object than a mantra object. If this is so, then it will require more skill and intuitive/conceptual understanding to "achieve results" with breath meditation. But keep in mind that this extra skill and understanding may be worth it when it comes to insight practices.

For anyone interested in this topic, Shinzen Young writes about it here: http://www.shinzen.org/shinsub3/artMantra.htm

Something that was helpful for me in untangling/understanding some of this in my own practice (and improving my samadhi quite a bit) was when I learned that "concentration" is a poor translation for "samadhi". "Concentration" implies a particular sort of effort--somewhat strenuous. However, samadhi is not an effort of mind, but a state of mind.

Rather than being instructed to concentrate, I was instructed to "compose" myself withing the breath--to hold myself in a particular relationship to it and to allow concentration to arise. Concentration is a conditioned state (meaning it is dependent on factors which include the meditators' skill, but also other factors). It requires skill to allow concentration to arise, but concentration is not a skill in the way that sati--or mindfulness is. You can shine sati on pretty much any experience--you can't will yourself into jhana, but you can endeavor to create the conditions for it to arise. One other thing to keep in mind is that sati may well give rise to samadhi and jhana--but not the other way around.

Actually no, I did this in the early eighties when it was more or less free for teens (which I then was, sigh). Obviously the organization has since become a lot more focused on both money and 'powers' in the form of siddhis. Both of which led to my rapid disillusion - I think you'll hear the same story from a lot of people. However, I'm now in revisionist mode and as such I don't think it was such a bad intro to meditative practices.