--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 3:59 AM, maskedzebra wrote: > > >> I get the feeling you fell for the placebo and are still trying to > >> convince everyone else it's still pure Pfizer. But then that's always been > >> the dilemma of the awakened TM teacher or die-hard TM lover: can they stop > >> projecting some scripts from the TM screenplay onto their own (supposedly > >> autonomously Self-produced) "enlightenment"? > > > > Don't think I entirely understand what you are saying here, Vaj. Perhaps > > you could pose the question a different way. Oh, by the way: my > > enlightenment, it was REAL. > > > > People have different experiences with TM and the indoctrination that > surrounds it. One peculiar, but so far universal trend, is that TMer > claimants of enlightenment are presenting their experience(s) in terms of > their SCI-style indoctrination and rarely stray outside these acquired > beliefs. So, for example, MMY's indoctrination may state "Unity" is A, B, C, > D and F - while the living tradition of Advaita Vedanta or Patanjali may be > more explicit and say "yes, it is A, B, C, D and F - but it's also G through > Z". TM claimants of enlightenment universally adhere to what they were > conditioned to believe, and always miss key points of what the actual, living > tradition tells us these stages (or states) are.
I agree that TM'ers know little about other traditions and the differences in defining states of consciousness. TM people don't have all the exposure that you do to your own criteria of the "living tradition." So of course they use the simple outline of MMY, unless they read about or try other traditions and adopt that tradition's lingo. S But i seems to me that all traditions have their own lingo and criteria. And as to science proving that the Tibetan Buddhists have the real deal on enlightenment and brain waves, I am not sure all that info is in yet. It may be different brain waves than what TM'ers call enlightenment, but the final definition of the variety of states of brain functioning is not by any means arrived at yet. At least as far as I know. > > The exceptions are largely lingo and buzz-phrases borrowed from Neo- and > Pseudo-advaita movements that are so trendy these days. > > So the point is people were given "something other" than the real deal, but > like to insist (nay, argue) for the reality of the placebo, "I didn't get the > fake, I got THE REAL PILL" (That's not say people don't gain relaxation and > various side-effects from TM, they do). But most are probably little > different than post-hypnotic suggestion. > > On the more scientific side (the TMO loving so much to use science as an > advertising and marketing ploy), we now have a very good idea what actual > "higher states of consciousness" look like, esp. in terms of EEG. > > None of the those traits have been seem in advanced TMers - at least not yet. > > I agreed more with your previous statement that TM style enlightenment more > resembled a type of psychosis - although hypomania might be a more accurate > pathology IMMO. >
