--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <lengli...@...> wrote:

> Seems to me that MMY's "unique contribution" is the understanding that
> thinking a mantra is no different than thinking any other thought.
> 
> Insomuch as most other meditation "techniques" seem to miss this point,
> I'd say it is unique to TM (or at least, my interpretation of TM).
> 
> 
> L

This principle doesn't hold up all the way through the advanced techniques or 
the defunct Chopra technique. But in any case I've not met any TMer who could 
rightfully claim the kind of exposure to different meditaitons that would make 
this claim valid and that criticism goes doubly for Maharishi who according to 
his own reports was a company man.  But was have a few people here who seem to 
have gone further and found out that it was not a unique contribution.

>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Mar 28, 2009, at 12:00 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> > 
> > > Although Maharishi promotes the idea of coming back to the mantra  
> > > was his unique contribution, I'm not sure a broader study of the  
> > > source documents would support this.
> > 
> > 
> > If he indeed made that claim, it's and out and out lie. Another one.  
> > But then again, most of us back then knew no better--we actually  
> > believed it, at least for a while. So, in brief, it was not his unique  
> > contribution, but traditional in many forms of meditation practice,  
> > not just mantra repetition. It precedes TM by thusands and thousands  
> > of years.
> > 
> > The problem with TM is that it's a canned form of mantra practice,  
> > rather than allowing different styles of repetition for different  
> > types of people, the way it really should be. After all, we're all  
> > different!
> >
> 
> 
> Seems to me that MMY's "unique contribution" is the understanding that
> thinking a mantra is no different than thinking any other thought.
> 
> Insomuch as most other meditation "techniques" seem to miss this point,
> I'd say it is unique to TM (or at least, my interpretation of TM).
> 
> 
> L
>


Reply via email to