--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@...>
wrote:
>
> Thank you, Navashok!
>
> You post has actually answered my questions about mantras. In my
opinion, the fact that there is no sort of checking for sidhis means the
idea that the meaningless sound theory of the mantras is nonsense and
that as you said the entire checking procedure is a form of
auto-suggestion - that explains it very well, and so we see that there
is nothing, neither the mantras themselves nor the instructions on how
to use them that makes TM better than any other meditation.
>
> Also, you are absolutely right in saying that the mind set we got from
TM persists for decades - I have found this to be true for myself in the
past year, subtle things I was not aware of for years.
>
> Also I will add that Buck made me think of something with his mention
of the many healers and other spiritual practitioners in Fairfield. If
TM is so yummy and so effective and we all know that official party TM
line is that TM is all we need, then why do so many tried and true
TM'ers go to these folks? Seems like TM would be all they would need.
Hmmm.
Gotta agree with you on that one Michael. I have been wondering that for
a while now but I have my theories and won't bore anyone with them right
now.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 7:24 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was:
> > > >
> > > > 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if
> > > > there are any, in his mind);
> > > >
> > > > 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders;
> > >
> > > Since TM mantras are for householders, are there mantras
> > > for gays and lesbians as well?
> >
> > More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to
> > Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and
> > thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses,
> > were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate"
> > recluse mantra?
>
> Actually, even those who got the 'monks technique', they didn't get
OM, so it's a bluff. The so-called 'no-mantra-for-householders' is only
a cover-up for the brahmanical no to any vedic mantra for lower castes,
especially women.
>
> > If they were not, I suspect we have the reason why
> > the person held up to represent the epitome of
> > Purusha life for so long -- King Tony -- turned
> > out to have been secretly married with children the
> > whole time. He was meditating with a "householder
> > mantra." :-)
> >
> > Just poking fun, because unlike many here, I do not
> > believe in the magical Woo Woo properties of mantras,
> > period -- the TM kind or any other. They're just words,
> > and have no power or attributes other than those we
> > project onto them. I know from experience that one
> > can meditate -- and transcend, into long periods of
> > thoughtless samadhi -- on mantras other than those
> > used in TM, on ordinary words chosen at random, and
> > using no mantra at all.
>
> Well, I wouldn't want to meditate on a word like 'Phat',because I
imagine there is a phonetic quality not being woo woo. Om, or Ah are
resounding mantras, they could just go on in your mind, why phat is used
for stopping in Tantra. It does seem to have this phonetic quality.
OTOH, I have used many non sanskrit mantras, for example Hebrew words,
or the most clear example are the Siddhis, which are simply English
words, Inner Light for example. So, all of the TM logic about why TM is
so effective, that its a word without meaning, that it has a special
sound quality, goes out of the window when it comes to Siddhis. They
have meaning, which is obviously important, as they are translated to
the local languages. And everybody here will claim that they work just
well and deepen the experience of TM.
>
> Btw. where is the checking procedure of the siddhis? You know the
checking procedure has the sense to ensure the correct effortless TM,
why isn't there a similar procedure for the siddhis? The siddhis are
much more complex, you have to think the words in intervals, you have to
remember a whole bunch of them etc. This shows to me, that the whole
checking procedure is indeed a (light) form of hypnosis /
auto-suggestion. That's why it feels so good, because you get into some
passive kind of guided procedure.
>
> > This leads me to believe that all the Woo Woo TM
> > emphasis on mantras was just marketing hoopla, a way
> > at first to make people feel unique and special
> > because their mantra was chosen "especially for them,"
> > and not based on some simplistic formula like, say,
> > one's age. After all, when he first started teaching
> > TM, didn't Maharishi prescribe the same mantra -- Ram --
> > for everyone? Only later did he change this, and
> > several times, such that teachers who went to TTC at
> > different times have very different sets of mantras.
>
> Yep, exactly. And in most cases it returns to one mantra with the
advanced techniques, all can get the same mantra. It's really only a
marketing trick. Still it does it's job, but for a high price.
>
> > I *know* that some people like to imbue both the
> > mantras themselves and the Woo Woo of "imparting"
> > them with mystical, magical attributes, and it's
> > their right to believe this if they want. My personal
> > experience, and the experience of thousands of others
> > I've talked to suggest that such beliefs are 1) pure
> > superstition, and 2) almost always a form of self-
> > importance -- "My mantra is better than your mantra
> > because [...fill in the blank here...]."
> >
> > My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from
> > my point of view, falling prey to one of the most
> > chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were
> > TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique --
> > as if it were not only true, but cosmically true,
> > Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so
> > strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along
> > without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base
> > other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth
> > of the assumptions was a given.
>
> Now that's something I noticed, that the theories and the mindset
created continues way after a person actually leaves TM. If you were
let's say 10 years in TM, your belief system will be influenced still
decades after you left it - not all of the beliefs, but enough for you
to still uncover it, if you are interested in it. If you discover that
Maharishi was playing games with beliefs, inventing stories to make
people go along with it, and then see how long it takes to get rid of
it, it makes you think.
>
> But OTOH, if you REALLY transcend, if you really go ahead in your
experience, it will also explode most of those beliefs. That is why
those who really get into a higher state of consciousness, usually can't
stay in the movement for very long. The beliefs and indoctrination is
for those without experiences.
>
> > An example is the parroting in this thread of "the TM
> > mantras are for householders." How do you KNOW this,
> > those of you who have been repeating it so mindlessly?
> >
> > Simple, you "know" it only because it was TOLD to you,
> > and you've bought what you were TOLD so effectively
> > that for you it's become a kind of core belief, a
> > baseline truth than *can*, and in fact *must* be
> > assumed. But the only real truth in this equation
> > is that you have no reason to believe this other than
> > the fact that it was TOLD to you by the person selling
> > you the technique you learned, and you just bought it
> > at the time and now keep repeating it as if this
> > phrase itself were some kind of holy mantra.
> >
> > It's not. It's a *belief*, based on what someone TOLD
> > you. I for one think that it's beneficial to keep that
> > in mind when presenting things you were TOLD to others
> > as if they were Truth.
> >
>
