--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
[restoring part of what Ruth snipped, without indicating it, just for the record:] > > > Of course, the TMO on www.tm.org still promotes basic TM > > > as not requiring any lifestyle changes at all. > > > Specifically, "The Transcendental Meditation technique is > > > not a religion or philosophy and involves no change in > > > lifestyle." > > > > Of course, you are overinterpreting "change in lifestyle" > > in an attempt to dredge up a contradiction. Obviously in > > your interpretation, incorporating two meditation periods > > a day in one's routine would involve a "change in > > lifestyle." > > You're also interpreting "disciplined" (as opposed to > > "undisciplined") to mean something considerably more > > strenuous than simply healthy living. > > You must be bored, making hay out of nothing. As I pointed out, you're trying to fabricate a contradiction that doesn't exist. That isn't "nothing." You are > interpreting what Nabby meant by his comment about an > undisciplined lifestyle. You don't know if he meant > failure to engage in "simple healthy living." (I didn't say "simple healthy living," I said "simply [i.e., merely] healthy living." A lifestyle doesn't have to be "simple" to be healthy.) Well, yes, I do know what Nabby meant, and so do you, because he went on to explain it (and you responded to that post, so I know you read it): "Or eating a huge meal minutes before you meditate. The outer pressures from for example spouses and children can take a huge toll unless one is disciplined. That's why being single usually, but not always, makes things easier. If not disciplined small thing like overeating or not getting enough sleep will make experiences dull to the point when someone might think it's a waste of time to meditate or follow a time-consuming TM-Sidhi programme. The wast majority who drop out do so for these mundane reasons." I had expanded a little on that by mentioning getting enough exercise, but I doubt he'd disagree. He and I are essentially saying the same thing. (He also makes the point that it can be tougher to stick to a healthy routine, including regular program, with a spouse and children, which seems commonsensical.) Notice that he doesn't say anything about any of what you called "lifestyle creep," as I suspect you were hoping he would so you could pounce on it and quote the TM promo literature again. > (Though I do dispute that the TMO actually promotes simple > healthy living). Either way, the TMO doesn't talk about > leading disciplined lifestyle at all, it is not a phrase > the TMO uses Nabby didn't use it either. He talked about an "undisciplined lifestyle," i.e., a lifestyle with no discipline. As I said, you're interpreting "disciplined lifestyle" to mean something more strenuous than merely healthy living so you can claim there's a contradiction. >, so I was interested in what else Nabby had to say about it. And he told you, and it was the same as what I said. > > But again, not even *that* much discipline is required to > > learn and practice TM. > > Well, it depends. If you find the practice unsatisfying > it could take considerable self discipline to continue with > the practice. Of course, regular practice (as I said earlier in this exchange) is a given, so this is irrelevant. <snip> > As noted, healthy living is simply > > recommended as the way to make the most of your practice > > (it's likely the way to make the most of *any* self- > > improvement practice). > > > Nabby's saying that in his experience, those who ignore > > such recommendations tend to be more likely to quit TM > > because they aren't getting as much from their practice. > > He didn't say that. Yes, he did: "Usually, from my experiences meeting virtually thousands of people, it's due to lack of good experiences during meditation usually because of an undisciplined lifestyle." > He said what he said and I asked for more clarification. > I don't need you to be a Nabby interpreter. We disagree. > Now after your post putting words in his mouth who knows > what he will say. He already said it before he saw either of my posts, and we both know what he said. In any case, he's never been shy about disagreeing, even with other TMers. I'm sure he'll correct me if I've misinterpreted him. No thanks for butting in. > > > > (This was in response to your remark, "I sometimes wonder > > how likely it is for a long term true believer to give it > > up and lose faith. And whether it simply is a drifting > > away or a more sudden 'aha' moment.") > > > > > There certainly has been lifestyle creep in the true > > > believer community, probably as a result of all the side > > > products the TMO has been promoting in recent years. > > > > Unquestionably, but that's irrelevant to what Nabby > > and I are telling you. > > I let Nabby speak for himself. I think it is very relevant > as it can color the point of view of believers. No question it can color their point of view, but Nabby said nothing about any of it; and you were challenging him with regard to what folks are told before they even learn, i.e., no lifestyle change. In that context, "lifestyle creep" is irrelevant. > > > Rest in rather vague terms has been consistently promoted, > > > usually to say you should rest a few minutes after your > > > program. Meditation and rest afterwords is he general > > > prescription for unstressing. But vague admonitions to > > > rest isn't really what most think of when thinking of > > > lifestyle requirements. > > > > Not sure what your point is here. There are, as I said, no > > "lifestyle requirements" to practice TM. > > As I have said several times I am interested in > Nabby's comment about undisciplined lifestyles leading > to lack of good mediation experiences contributing to > people quitting. Yes, that's clear, but unresponsive. > > In any case, getting enough rest at night, not just after > > meditation, is an extremely common recommendation in the > > TM context, in my experience. TM isn't a substitute for > > sleep. > > Extremely common? I don't recall my initiator mentioning > it. I don't recall anything in the checking notes about it. Yes, I said to start with your TM course must have been very different from mine if you never encountered these recommendations. And above I said, "in my experience." > I was checked last year, the teacher didn't mention it and > no prior checker ever mentioned it. No, it isn't explicitly in the checking notes; that isn't what they're for. But it's one of the things one might well be told if one were to complain during the three days of checking or at an advanced lecture or a course that one wasn't having good experiences or was falling asleep in meditation a lot or feeling tired outside of meditation. Lots of other possible reasons, but not getting enough sleep is very definitely on the list. > On courses getting enough sleep during the course was > emphasized. But it did seem a bit like an excuse to > make people go to bed early and get out of people's > hair. "Here, have a starchy meal and go to sleep." Just can't contain the malice, can you? I'm sure there'll be more if you respond, but I'm out of posts for the week, so I won't be able to comment until Friday night or Saturday.
