---True - it's the Shakti (but not much of that in Spain).
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Another is the fact that many teachers really > > > *did* feel a "buzz" from doing puja. I never > > > felt much of one, but some did, and they assoc- > > > iate that buzz with magical thinking and feel > > > that something about *their* buzz helped give > > > their initiates a buzz, too. > > > > That certainly explains a lot! :-D > > It does, if you're not stuck in ego and the > need to feel all "special." :-) > > > I always got a buzz from the puja which I associate with > > shakti but then I also had the kundalini rise the very first > > time I tried meditation ... > > How special. :-) > > > from a book which I wouldn't recommend to anyone but for some > > reason it worked for me (and the results disorienting). I > > stand by my assertion that the puja is used to get at least > > enough shakti going that the mantras would work regardless > > of who was teaching. Otherwise it would have taken years to > > get a troupe of teachers going and spread TM. > > So you're saying, essentially, that it's the > "specialness" of the teacher and their ability > to generate "shakti" that makes the technique > in question work, not the technique itself. > What an interestingly egocentric view. :-) > > > If you had some success teaching meditation to people without > > the puja then it is because a) you either got charged up enough > > that the mantras were charged anyway, b) that (most likely) the > > people you were teaching were spiritually oriented or had > > spiritual past that having them meditate on "toe cheese" > > would have worked. > > Or c) that shakti has nothing whatsoever to do > with it, and those who are convinced that it's > what made *their* teaching or *their* initiation > "special" are just longing to be special. :-) > > > And of course I'm not restricting this to mantra meditation > > either as you have said before you taught non mantra meditation. > > I understand. Gotta cover your stance's ass. It > was because either I was "special" or the magical > techniques I was teaching were "special." It > couldn't have *possibly* been because the tech- > niques in question just *worked*, with no > "specialness" was needed, right? :-) > > > It is probably not magical at all but some laws of physics and > > sound physics at work. > > I would have said, "the techniques worked because > they work, not because of any specialness bullshit," > but whatever floats your boat. :-) > > > As a tantric I am allowed to play around with mantras > > a bit > > How "special" for you. Good thing you were > "allowed" to do this or the magic might have > fried your gonads or something. :-) > > > ...and have noted the effects on different centers of the brain > > with different mantras and thus why these mantras can produce > > different physiological effects. Much of this has been documented > > in ayurveda. > > Of course not. Then you wouldn't be as "special." :-) > > > Of course you're in a nihilist phase so you see all of this as > > TB'er stuff even when it isn't. :-D > > Of course you're in a "I'm so special" phase, > so you're fairly insufferable when you get > like this. Fortunately I practice compassion > *and* have a short memory, and don't hold it > against you. :-) >
