--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > You mention "My decisions are based on objective criteria as well as > > subjective criteria". But I think all of what you say relates to > > objective stuff? So I'm wondering - what was your SUBJECTIVE > > experience of TM? Did it do anything at all for you? Did it have > > anything at all going for it would you say? > > Subjective impressions also included what are the meditators like that > I know personally. For example, from the first three sutras, do they > seem more friendly, compassionate, happy than they were before > meditating or from others I know? These impressions were important to > me because my exhusband and very good friends from college days became > believers in the techniques and are long time meditators. > > I have talked some about my own experiences here. I am a person who > finds it difficult to sit still unless I am doing something like > reading or on the computer. I like being on the move and I find it > tremendously relaxing to swim or run. I can hike to the top of a hill > and transcend. > > My meditation experiences frequently were of thee "when can I get up" > or "only five minutes have passed?" type. Sometimes I could go quite > a while being able to meditate, but I did not find much in the way of > positive effects. I stuck with it for quite a while because of habit > and family. > > I mentioned before that I walked out of the siddhis course before it > was over because I had a WTF moment. >
That's interesting and I quite "get it". Unlike you though, I have always enjoyed TM so it's no real effort to do it. If that wasn't the case I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't have persevered (it wasn't *perseverance* ;-) ). Because I enjoy it and it seems to be (subjectively) profound - I feel there must be something to it. Quite what I'm not sure. If you describe it as "restful alertness" then I don't think that's a misuse of language. That term might seem a bit prosaic, but I am more inclined to think it has a deeper significance than, say, Curtis would allow. As for the Vajs and Knapps of this world - I don't recognise the "dangerous" TM they froth and fret about (in the former case at least with such self-regarding and zealous fervour). That comes from both my own experience and from all the folks I have met down the years who have done TM. Of all the people who have been around the planet in my lifetime, I feel MMY embodied something genuinely special. Having said that, I can't say the same for any of the folks I met in the TMO - which is on the face of it puzzling. Bottom line? Thinking about it 'duz me 'ead in'.
