--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > > 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). > > > > I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people > > who are very good at TM. They transcend easily and feel > > good in their practice, with little if any adverse effects > > (unstressing). They may be naturally good at it or it may > > have come from practice or both. > > Ruth, you're going to groan (and I don't blame > you), but I chalk the differences in how some > people react to TM as opposed to the way others > react to TM as predilection, which I then chalk > up to "past life experience." OK, *forget* the > "past life experience" if you don't believe in > that, but "predilection" is Right On in my exper- > ience as both a meditator and as a teacher of > meditation. > > My theory is that those who have "paid their dues" > performing meditative practices in the past are > more likely to "fall into" other, similar practices > in another life. If you don't believe in past lives, > call it pure predilection...the fact that different > human beings have different nervous systems and > likes and dislikes and things that they "resonate" > with and things that they do not. > > Whatever you call it, the outcome is the same. Some > experience what they call transcendence (although I > don't necessarily call it that) very quickly with > TM, and some don't. For some, it takes time before > they "settle down" enough to even sit through 20 > minutes of TM practice. For others, it's like pulling > teeth even after years of TM practice. > > In my opinion, there is "no harm, no foul" in ANY > of these different reactions. I have known people who > *hated* TM, and then tried a meditation practice that > involved focus and concentration, and *loved* it. They > "fell into" that practice immediately, and found *it* > effortless, whereas they always found TM effortful. > Go figure. This is completely contradictory to the > dogma of the TM movement, and yet as a person who has > taught hundreds of people TM and another hundreds of > people other techniques of meditation, I've seen it > happen. > > There is simply no predicting who will "get" a par- > ticular practice. Some will, some won't. No harm, no > foul either way in my opinion. Some will "get" one > practice and not another. Again, no harm, no foul. > > Ritalin -- a form of speed, an amphetamine if I am > not mistaken -- has the effect of *calming down* > certain people. For others, it has the effect of > speed in general. Same with meditation practices. > > Also, contrary to what Richard suggests, there are > some meditation practices that one can *definitely* > get better at over time. Which is a good thing. > Imagine being one of the people who *didn't* fall > easily into TM and being told for years that it was > all your fault. Oh. You probably were. >
I don't believe in reincarnation, so I don't buy your theory beyond saying that a persons predilection/make up very likely does effect how meditation works for them. I am curious about what works for what kinds of people and whether there are simply those who are naturals at meditative type practices. For example, there is some indication that people who meditate have characteristics of people who are susceptible to hypnosis: "Walrath and Hamilton (1975) reported that there is some indication that TM is related to hypnotic susceptibility. In their study, although only 44% of the non-TM volunteer subjects were rated as highly susceptible, with scores of 10 or higher on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, 100% of the TM practitioners received scores of 11 or 12 on the Stanford Scale. Walrath and Hamilton concluded that either the practice of TM increases susceptibility to hypnosis or only highly susceptible subjects find sufficient reinforcement in the technique to continue its practice. Using the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and the Field Depth of Hypnosis Inventory to test hypnosis, Van Nuys (1973) also found that hypnotic susceptibility correlated with subjects' initial skill at meditating. On the other hand, Rivers and Spanos (1981) assessed 147 students on absorption, hypnotic susceptibility, three measures of psychological well-being, and their response to meditation, concluding that differences between meditators and nonmeditators may be due to self-selection. Earlier, Spanos et al. (1980a) and Spanos et al. (1978) found that hypnotic susceptibility correlated significantly with subjects' initial skill at meditating." http://www.noetic.org/research/medbiblio/ch3_2.htm I would like to know more about what kind of people learn to meditate and keep meditating as opposed to those who never learn and those who learn and quit.
