Thanks DaveK,

I'd tried an unfamiliar piece of text in english from that very page.

with metta,
PG
___________________________

On 4/16/08, dkotschessa <dkotschessa@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>, "P G Dave"
> <pgd2507@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi DaveK,
> >
> > I tried the tool on that page. works well as long as that string
> of 1st
> > letters is in front of you. After using the string to recall the
> original
> > passage successfully 3-4 times, I tried remembering the passage
> without the
> > string in front of me. my performance dropped to a poor 20% or so.
> so, the
> > real problem and challange is to memorise the abstract and
> meaningless
> > string that acts as a peg / trigger to the memory. How wud u do
> that...and
> > preferably...is there a way to recall independent of the string
> once it's
> > been used 2-3 times bcos that shud be the ultimate aim anyway?
>
> If you've used classic mnemonics before, you might be expecting the
> same kind of instant satisfaction they often to provide. But I
> would set my expectation for this technique a little lower. It's
> better than rote memorization - but not TOO much better.
>
> I would take what the article says about the preparatory work as
> gospel. Reading the text allowed, copying it by hand, outlining,
> hearing it read aloud by someone else, etc.
>
> That being said, I suppose you COULD use other memory devices for
> this part of it, such as picking out key words and stringing them
> together using typical mnemonics. This is what Harry Loryanne and
> Jerry Lucas teach in their classic "The Memory Book."
>
> I've never found this technique ultimately useful becuase it doesn't
> get the "in between" words that are to abstract for mnemonization.
> ("if," "too," "than.") But perhaps it would help for this
> preparatory stage?
>
> One of the comments I saw there proposed the idea of lumping the
> letters together, creating a word out of those and using mnemonics
> for that. I don't know how well that would work, because you'd be
> adding more letters in to form your actual word.
>
> Did you try this with a text that you were already pretty familiar
> with? My first attempt was with the middle part of the Kalama
> sutta, which is already fairly close to my heart in many ways. I
> have to admit I haven't worked at it that much yet so I can't really
> report on the results, but it seemed to be working. I know I
> couldn't say the same for a less familiar text.
>
> -DaveK
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]