> > A definition of 'TM' or 'meditation' would > > have to be all inclusive, with no exceptions. > > peter wrote: > Why would that be? TM in a group of current > and former TM practitioners refers to a > particular meditation technique taught by > MMY. Why would a definition of "TM" be all > inclusive? What does that even mean? If a > definition is all inclusive it makes no > distinctions and is therefore meaningless. > I truly don't get your point. > A definition, Peter, of meditation does not, strictly thinking, address the purpose of meditation, which would require a material statement. A rigorous definition must withstand all exceptions.
Read more: Subject: TM Identification From: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: Sat, Dec 13 2003 http://tinyurl.com/oa3nxc > > I've listed several exceptions below. Marshy > > says that TM is based on thinking and that > > it's a purely mechanical technique. > > > Agreed. > > > Why don't you post a definition of 'TM', > > Doctor? > > Why? > So, we can tell if you understand what 'TM' is, instead of talking about meditation in general? > Essentially everyone in this group practices > TM or did at some point. > Perhaps, but they can't even define what it is? That doesn't even make any sense. > Do you or did you ever practice TM as defined > by MMY? > Yes, but Marshy wasn't able to define 'TM'. He said it was based on thinking, so it must be 'thinking things over', right? So, don't you 'think your mantra' - that's thinking about something, right? Don't you 'think over' your mantra? How would you think the mantra if you don't think the mantra? > > Another question: > > > > How do the 'spirits' get into the machine? > > > Spirits get into machines through the darshan > of homunculi. Everybody knows that! > Well, thanks, but I always thought it was because of the little fur-balls rounding on the wheel inside and that makes the mind go around. Go figure.
