> Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a lot > of yogic science.
I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith. You also pick and choose what you have faith in. Just putting the words yogic and science together does not make it so. I see no reason to believe that the methods of science have anything to do with these claims. Do you think the early yogis did double blind studies on their sounds to determine their effects? No it as Maharishi says is traditional. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in > your attempt to debase TM. What are you talking about, an "attempt to debase TM?" I just don't buy into all the beliefs, I practice TM and think it is a nice relaxation technique. So what is the baby, all the beliefs that surround the practice? There are differences between different > sounds and their effect upon the human nervous system. Restating the dogma is not providing more information. I don't believe that the guys who claim this are basing it on more than religious tradition. Remember that Maharishi started teaching TM in India with 2 mantras right? If you are claiming that the TM mantras are assigned according to some profound criteria I have one response: The second advanced technique. This marketing claim doesn't hold up. It is sound > science. Oh reaaaaaaly. <I would expect better from a fellow musician.> We aren't talking about audible music we are talking about a thought in your head. And shaming tactics in a discussion of ideas haven't worked on me since I was 10. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > curtisdeltablues wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > But that is the problem with both your examples,they are extreme. You > > are claiming that there is a huge difference between two notes in > > consonance but using the example of dissonance which does not apply to > > your claim. Using Raam or Govinda as a mantra does not have the > > intrinsic differences you are claiming. It is not like a soothing > > sound and finger nails on a blackboard, that is a bad example. > I think you are wrong. So what about the extreme example you have to > give an extreme example to make people understand. After all these were > lectures for people not born in India. > > Consonance and dissonance are the fine science of music. They have an > effect upon the psyche of your audience. They are an example of > resonance which I originally talked about here. > > > > > > I'm sure there are all sorts of Nada Yoga books that makes such > > unsupported claims, that doesn't help either. This is a religious > > belief that I do not share. My only objection is that you and > > Maharishi pretend it has a scientific or even common sense basis,which > > it does not. It is an assertion on the level with "Believing in Jesus > > as your savior gives you eternal life." > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a lot > of yogic science. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in > your attempt to debase TM. There are differences between different > sounds and their effect upon the human nervous system. It is sound > science. I would expect better from a fellow musician. >
