--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> I'd say that anyone, like the character here, who takes the bubble diagram > literally shouldn't have been made a teacher in the first place. You misunderstand. You don't have to take the bubble diagram literally, you can very well take it as an analogy, but there are two things about it: One, how far an analogy goes, and second the suggestive power of it. Both are very limiting. I have seen this in discussions with dogmatic TMers. For example the bubble diagram suggest, that a mantra has to get refined, and ultimately 'burst' (get lost), and unless that happens you cannot transcend. Hence the rejection of any technique that is not exactly like TM. Therefore, with reasoning supported by a simple analogy, you get pure dogma. The same is true with the definition of states of consciousness, like CC, GC and UC, which Joerg mentions. It is used as a universal scheme of judging meditation techniques, spiritual movements, just the whole lot of it. For example, any mindfulness technique will be charactericed as leading only to CC. Naturally the definitions are simple, if not simplistic, and too categorical. These analogies give the whole story a certain drift. As my favorate quote of last month says:'there is nothing outside the text' (Derrida) That is to say: everything you feel, do, think, you do within a certain context, framework of thoughts etc. You can transcend, but once you start thinking again, you are again within a certain framework. There is nothing objective about this.
