How much transcendental

I’m into Transcendental Meditation but I’m so busy I only have time to do 1 second of TM a year. Do you think I should do 1/12th seconds a month, 0.0027397260 seconds a day, 0.0001141552 seconds an hour or simply have a full whole second TM bonanza once a year?

a reply to: washy76

I'm sure you should do at least 2 hours a day - that way you'll stay away from ATS writing up idiotic threads. What a waste of time

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: washy76

I'm sure you should do at least 2 hours a day - that way you'll stay away from ATS writing up idiotic threads. What a waste of time

Maybe it’s an advertisement.....seems a few ‘slebs are into it (probably a scam site of some sort 🙈😂)

uk.tm.org...

I was trying to use humour to draw attention to the ephemeral nature of human existence. The absurdity of the universe rendered meaningful by perception. The Greeks wondered how many times one could half a glass of water. If you apply similarities to time some interesting questions appear. If you examined your existence at say last Tuesday afternoon 3:15pm and 10 seconds and then dived that second into 100parts and picked say the 55th fraction what would the essence of your subjective experience have been? a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

is

originally posted by: washy76
I was trying to use humour to draw attention to the ephemeral nature of human existence. [/post]

You evidently failed in doing so. Apparently also failed in getting the message across. What exactly is the message?

Add some meat to your OP. Being vague is cool and all, but being on point gets people's attention, which is rather more productive.

a reply to: washy76

Leave irony and sarcasm to the experts.

Just come out and tell us why you don't like TM, the Maharishi, the cult, whatever. Did you sign up and get ripped off or get rejected by one of the cult cuties.

Hare Krishna

a reply to: washy76

I'm suspicious...

71/2 secs inhale....71/2 secs exhale x 2= 4 single breaths per min...that's 1 min...
Departure time : 3-5 mins.

Cya there....

a reply to: washy76

I was trying to use humour to draw attention to the ephemeral nature of human existence. The absurdity of the universe rendered meaningful by perception. The Greeks wondered how many times one could half a glass of water. If you apply similarities to time some interesting questions appear. If you examined your existence at say last Tuesday afternoon 3:15pm and 10 seconds and then dived that second into 100parts and picked say the 55th fraction what would the essence of your subjective experience have been?

Time is intimately connected to change and motion. Judging by what you say here I imagine you are familiar with paradoxes held by earlier philosopher's like Zeno who gave paradoxes similar to the one's you're sharing here to argue that change was illusory. The nature of the universe changes as one shifts their thinking into different metaphysical paradigms. What if one doesn't share your view of metaphysics here? What if by nature the universe is not absurd, but ordered? What if change and stasis can be harmonized rather than opposed?

a reply to: washy76
Why not look at what is present here and now to do the experiment?
Why go to another time to do it?

You can never escape the present anyway.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I can't help but laugh at how inconsistent you are across the board. You dont believe that pronouns refer to any real thing, yet you constantly betray this belief by your actions.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
It's ok I know you will never comprehend anything I have written....so I will not bother with you again.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I'm afraid that you are misunderstanding what is going on within our conversations. I am merely trying to get you to behave consistently with what you tell me you believe. I am not mad or angry with you, but I do have disdain for the ideas that you hold to for I think they keep you from the light of truth, and thus I will continue to try and get you to see that your the way you view reality is incompatible with the idea that you could possibly have knowledge. For example, you tell me that you believe in non-duality at the highest level of your ontological system. That the distinction between "I" and "you" are illusory, yet here you are telling me that "I" do not comprehend something that "you" wrote. Given your ontological system this is not meaningful. Given my own it is meaningful, which is why "we" can have an intelligible conversation about reality.

So Kant made famous a form of argumentation known as transcendental argumentation, which often uses what is called a reductio ad absurdum. A reductio seeks to prove to someone that a position is true or false by showing that either it's acceptance or denial leads to an absurd result. I am suggesting to you that your view of ontology does not provide you with the possibility of knowledge of any kind, and that because of this it ought to be abandoned as false and untrue. So below I will give you a transcendental argument:

Premise 1 It is possible for you to have knowledge. (You have to accept this premise to enter into a disagreement about the nature of reality, for example your claim that non-duality is a reality and my claim that reality is fundamentally personal.)

Premise 2 For it to be possible for you to have knowledge, you must exist. (It is not possible for you to have knowledge if what is referenced by the term "you" is not real)

Conclusion: Therefore, you must exist as a person with identity.

Vasubandhu was a philosopher who held to positions similar to yours, and he recognized that people who hold to a view that is based in a divine personhood. The forms of Hinduism he probably had in mind are monistic at their core, for the goal is to recognize that one's personhood is in fact Brahman, and that the world of distinction is illusory. Orthodox Christianity which places realities ground in the triune God who harmonizes unity and plurality without confusion is even more of terrifying adversary for such views.

Let me explain, you see in reality Truth itself is a person, and reality itself is based in communion. God the Father knowing himself in the light of his spirit that proceeds forth from him generates the Logos of God. God the Father thus shares in with the Logos and the Spirit all of what he is, and God the Father contemplating himself as distributive of goodness knows in his Logos of something other than himself that he will distribute his goodness to at the proper moment. Thus we have the eternal knowledge of creation centered in God's knowledge of himself the Logos and his many Logoi. Unity and plurality are synergized at the highest level of reality, and this then expands outward from God through his Logos giving us the ancient image of the monad. As each radii moves forth in an expansion held in order by a procession that holds together from the logos we come to the each individual reality we experience be it a particular sentence, a sensation of taste, or the recognition of a person. Man being made in the image of God has direct access to the logos in all things though a God given faculty known as the nous. This view does not seek to find a way out of suffering but rather embraces it as the Lotus for through proper modes of suffering comes something far more beautiful and mature.

Notice the reality I describe and the reality you describe are mutually exclusive. My view of reality seems to allow for access and communion with the truth, where as your view seeks to transcend any notion of your own existence and those you love.