--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: Richard M: >> The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness >> as being: ... >> * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better" at, as >> in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't >> say "I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you >> were doing it wrong five years ago).
Vaj: > So, in your opinion the cloth does not get dyed by repetition, the > "gap" does not widen and TM does not lead to higher states of > consciousness. Interesting. No, no, quite wrong. To take an unfortunate example - I think TM as a technique is a bit like learning to smoke a cigarette. In THAT sense it is not a "skill" (unless you are being perverse and over-literal). And yet, by repetition, the cloth/the lungs do get dyed/die by repetition. This contrasts to the whole idea of "adepts" and "experts" that are referred to in other schools (and your posts). Let me put it this way: I think staements such as "John Doe is a TM expert" or "John Doe is a TM master or adept" are close to being oxymorons. That is a pointer to an element of uniqueness about the technique and its philosophy. It's very democratic too: I can readily admit my lowly place in the spiritual food chain. But I need bow to no one as to my ability to do TM. This is a great contribution by Maharishi IMO and seems to me to be overlooked here. He was a sort of analog to Luther in this regard. And you, Vaj, with your emphasis on whether traditions are kosher or not, whether MMY has a right to be titled "Maharishi", whether he was from the right caste, and your zealous love of architectonic - that all stands against that liberating influence. In My Opinion. Richard M: >> * Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say "A is >> better at TM than B". Vaj: > Do you have evidence for this belief? Why should I? It's just obvious. I would say if you don't understand these points then I don't think you understand where TM is coming from. Consider two people seated side by side practising TM. Let's say Nabster and Raunchy. They're either doing it right or doing it wrong. But it's quite meaningless to suppose that one could have a talent for it whilst the other might not. Talent and aptitude do not enter into it. (That's NOT to say that their experiences wil be the same, that they will each get the same value from it, or find it equally beneficial).
