--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@> wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > 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. > > > > > > The sutras used in the TM-Sidhi program *are not mantras*; > > > sutra practice *is not meditation*. > > > > It's nice that you make up new definitions for the TMO > > I'm not "making up new definitions for the TMO," I'm > pointing out that you're full of baloney.
> > but maybe, before you make your own proclamations, as to what > > meditations consists of or not, why not go by the definition of > > Maharishi - Patanjali I mean: > > Well, because we were talking about TM-Sidhis practice > as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, not what Wikipedia > teaches about samyama. > > > trayam ekatra saṃyamaḥ .. 4.. > > > > These three together [dhāraṇā, dhyāna and > > samādhi] constitute integration or saṃyama. > > > > Combined simultaneous practice of Dhāraṇā (concentration), > > Dhyāna (meditation) & Samādhi (union). A tool to receive deeper > > knowledge of qualities of the object. It is a term summarizing the > > "catch-all" process of psychological absorption in the object of > > meditation.[2] > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyama > > > > So, you see Jody, samyama does contain Meditation (dhyana) > > and Samadhi, which is usually seen as the result of > > meditation, and Dharana, focused awareness or concentration, > > is usually also associated with meditation. So, to cut the > > story short, the siddhi practice of samyama is a type of > > meditation that is different from TM. > > As you know if you took the TM-Sidhis (and remember what > you were taught), the above does not accurately describe > TM-Sidhis practice. This is the very definition of the Yoga sutras, and has been used by the TMO in various brochures and by MMY in innumerable lectures. (eye-rolling, shaking head). But it's nice you are making new definitions, not only for meditation, but also for what the siddhis are comprised of, namely Samyama: Here another translation: trayam-ekatra saṁyamaḥ ||4|| The three processes of dharana, dhyana, and samadhi, when taken together, are the components of meditation (samyama). ||4|| > > > That the sutras are > > > words/phrases with semantic meaning has nothing to do with > > > what is said about the mantras; nothing "goes out the > > > window" on that basis. > > > > You are just not thinking and listening. You just react, > > knee-jerk reaction. If you would actually think about it, > > you'd have to acknowledge that within the TM framework > > there exist a type of meditation program where you > > actually repeat certain western words and phrases with > > semantic meaning. > > I have never disputed that a technique in which one repeats > words and phrases with semantic meaning (in the local language) > is part of the TM-Sidhis program. It IS the Siddhi program > What I dispute is the idea > that the use of this technique somehow negates what is said > about the mantras used in the plain-vanilla TM technique. Well, you would have to admit it, if you THINK beyond ready-made definitions. But you have to think for yourself. > > Maybe you don't easily see it like this, as the most common > > practice is with a sequence of changing phrases, the sutras, > > but on special courses, or in particular situations, people > > could practice one or two sutras more extensively, for longer > > periods of time. So here the parallel of practicing a western > > phrase (for example 'inner light') to repeating a mantra > > becomes more obvious. > > But not nearly parallel enough to justify your claim concerning > the mantras used in plain-vanilla TM. Absolutely justified. See below. > > > > 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. > > > > > > If by "they work just well" you meant to write "they work > > > just AS well" ("just well" isn't English), meaning the > > > sutras work just as well as the mantra, anyone who did say > > > that would be confused. The mantra one uses for plain- > > > vanilla TM and the sutras one uses in TM-Sidhis practice > > > are for different purposes and the methods of using them > > > are different. They "work" differently. > > You did not respond to this. The last two sentences in > particular are the heart of the matter. They are not the heart of the matter, but a way to disguise and confuse the matter. > > > > Btw. where is the checking procedure of the siddhis? > > > > > > TM-Sidhi administrators come around to TM centers on a > > > regular basis to make it available. It's also often > > > available on big WPAs. > > > > So, Jody, how many TM Sidhi checkings did you get so far? > > One. Okay, one within 30 years of practice? LOL > > > Did you ever get one, and then how is the relation to the > > TM checkings you got in quantity? > > > > I practiced the sidhis over a period of 11 to 12 years and > > there was no special checking for sidhis, so it could not > > have been very important. > > If it wasn't, why have they made it more available in > recent years? More available? You got one sutra checking with how many years, 35 years? > > I think it would be accurate to say it isn't considered > as *necessary* as TM checking is, but it's certainly as > important if one is having problems with the practice. > > Again, though, the two practices are *so* different > in so many respects that the degree to which they can be > legitimately compared--including with regard to checking-- > is very limited. > > Whereas in the TM the checking procedure starts right at > > the point of initiation. In fact most of the phrases > > which are repeated during the steps of initiation are > > almost identical to the phrases used in checking. > > Right. > > > One technique used during initiation is in fact taken > > from a book from Yogananda, > > Well, we don't know that it was "taken from" this book. Since it is almost literally the same, and since Yogananda published his book long before Maharishi came out with his teaching procedure, and since Maharishi admired Yogananda and saw in him a role model of what he was about to do, it is more than likely that he took it from there. Nothing wrong with that btw. > > which uses the same technique for affirmations, as a sort > > of auto-suggestion. This is when the person is asked to > > repeat his mantra ever more quietly, until he only thinks > > it, > > http://minet.org/www.trancenet.net/secrets/checking/steps.shtml > > It's your notion that this is "a sort of auto-suggestion." > I disagree. And it's used only in initial instruction, not > in checking. Important enough, don't you think? It is the moment you first get to hear the mantra, which you will be repeating for years or decades. The 'gradual refinement', as it is illustrated by this process of saying the mantra more and more quietly, is being referred to innumerable times in all consecutive checking procedures or lectures. And it is Yogananda who used it for positive suggestions. > > > > You know the checking procedure has the sense to ensure > > > > the correct effortless TM, why isn't there a similar > > > > procedure for the siddhis? > > > > > > There is such a procedure. It's very different from the > > > TM checking procedure because the practices are so > > > different, but both are for the same purpose, to ensure > > > effective practice. > > > > Yes, I know, you have learned the standard textbook. > > I don't believe there is a "standard textbook." I'm just > correcting your error. The 'standard textbook' is just a synonym for speaking the party-line. You are just evoking ther party line constantly, and as Curtis has pointed out so aptly, you are tied to the surface of the TM presentation beginners level. > I've never even heard or read > anyone saying what I just said. It's so obvious it > shouldn't need to be said, but you're so confused about > the TM-Sidhis that it has to be. It's so obvious because it's the party line. I can't believe we are having this conversation, you are so dense! > > > > 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 is utter nonsense. Nothing you've said in this post > > > that I've quoted makes any sense. > > Just to add, there's no logical connection between the > three sentences you wrote above. Not, if you don't try to see the connection. > > It's hard for me to > > > believe you ever took the TM-Siddhis course or ever > > > learned how to do checking. > > > > (you could now switch to your standard procedure and claim, > > that I actually never learned TM or Siddhis like Vaj, > > because it doesn't 'feel' that way, and that therefore I > > am a liar.) > > It's also hard for me to believe you ever read my posts > concerning Vaj. I read quite a few of them, and remember, at a time, where I was much less critical towards you then I am now. > My main question with him was whether > he had ever been a TM teacher, not because "it doesn't > 'feel' that way" (I never said that) You seem to have a hard time when expressions are being paraphrased > but because he said > so many things about the nature of the practice that > simply weren't accurate. Also, like Barry, he was known > to be a liar. Out of your mouth, this is almost a compliment. Btw.the intellectual dishonesty you display here, is worse by far. > > > (And I've never found that checking "feels so good," in > > > the sense of better than meditating on my own. Nor have > > > I ever heard anyone else say that.) > > > > Maybe you never checked enough people to really know > > anything about it. > > I never checked anybody. As I've said any number of > times here, I took checker training but never got > around to getting certified. Okay, didn't know that. > > I have checked people telling me, that they know what I am > > going to say, they know all the procedure and what is being > > done at a checking, in fact they know all the instructions, > > as they are repeated again and again all over, and yet, they > > were always positively surprised that it just works. > > Yes, I've heard people say that. But did they tell you > it "feels so good"? Or did you make that up? Really, what do you mean? They said it in this sense, not literally, as I speak and check in a different language. As long as you are trying to create some kind of semantic quibble out of this we can stop it here. Please note: I AM NOT INTERESTED TO CONVINCE YOU OR ANYBODY. So why should I waste my time with you? If you have an agenda and believe in something, do it, I don't care. If somebody is genuinely interested, who doesn't have an agenda, I am more than happy to explain. > > And why does it work? Because there is a strong suggestive > > component in it. > > > > Also, in the comment to the checking points, it is said, > > that the checking will ensure somebody does meditation > > correctly, and for that it means to have - during the > > checking - the *experience* of 'natural' and 'innocent' > > meditation. That together with the constant repetition of > > certain phrases, makes for a strong suggestive element in > > the checking procedure. And quite honestly, there is > > nothing bad about it. > > Right, nothing bad about it. But you contradict yourself > if you say the experience of natural and innocent > meditation is facilitated by suggestion. These would be the *content* of the suggestion: natural, easy, effortless, innocent. These terms are repeated ever so often in a suggestive way, which bring you, even the checker himself, in a passive, receptive state of mind. As Xeno said so nicely, the checking and meditation instruction are indeed a form of guided meditation. > > But if you never felt good, or especially relaxed after a > > checking, it explains a lot. > > Only in your mind, navashok. Of course in my mind, and probably in the mind of some others here as well. > > > (snip) > > > > Yep, exactly. And in most cases it returns to one mantra > > > > with the advanced techniques, all can get the same mantra. > > > > > > I can't speak to any advanced technique beyond the first, > > > which is all I have, but I didn't get a different mantra > > > from the one I had been given to start with. > > > > Obviously some get a different mantra, and some get only > > their own extended. > > Well, that isn't obvious. It is, because my mantra changed, and this is how it is revealed in the secrets of the meditation list. I never knew why it had changed, but then it became the same mantra, as most people will have. > > When you get a different mantra, as I did with my own first > > advanced technique, it will in fact be same for all. > > When was this that you got your first advanced technique? Can't say exactly, but about 1 1/2 years after starting TM, somewhere in the mid 70ies. My last technique was by Nandkishore at about the end 80ies. > > > My guess is that it depends on the Sidhi admin. > > Probably not, since TM-Sidhi administrators aren't the ones > who give the advanced techniques, or at least they weren't > when I got mine. Okay, you got me here, it was of course the 'fertilizer facilitator' (or how is it called?). Sorry, I was still a bit tired yesterday from traveling. But this is a semantic error, there is no logical error. > > > So if you would have different Sidhi admins, there is a > > good chance, that all end up having the same mantra in the > > end. But that is not my point. > > > > My point is that in principle, there is no reason why not > > everyone could have the same mantra, as was the case in the > > first years of TM in the west, there were only two mantras, > > one for women one for men. And those initiators who were > > made initiator at this time, still give only two mantras. > > I wouldn't dispute this. I wouldn't *rule out* the > possibility that Maharishi thought assigning different > mantras based on age would make the practice more > effective, but of course I don't know for sure. Nobody can rule it out, but it looks more likely the reason reflects what happened in Norway. Because if he would have wanted the practice more effective, he would surely instruct the older TM teachers accordingly, at ATR's for example. There are many examples were instructions in the checking points were changed, and all the TM teachers at ATR's were informed, so, if something so essential would take place, why not instruct all the teachers to teach in a uniform way? The reason is, that it didn't matter as long as different people would end up with different mantras. So the impression that everybody gets his own individual mantra is what mattered. Maybe Maharishi didn't adapt the mantra list for all teachers, because it would amount to admitting that the original list wasn't perfect. Why invite doubts? > > Knowing the circumstances of the introduction of the multi > > mantra policy in Norway, > > Which were? They were discussed here. You boast with your good memory, why don't you look it up yourself. > > to me the most logical conclusion is, that the mantras were > > not exchanged > > "Exchanged"? I don't know what that means in this context. > Exchanged for what? > Changed. The old list of two mantras was exchanged with a list of first 8 and then 16 mantras. What have we been talking about here? > > because they were somehow more effective, but because of > > the public impression created by this, in order to be able > > to come up with the sales pitch that 'everyone gets his > > individual mantra' and that it has to be 'specially > > selected by someone expert in it' - you couldn't just give > > your friends your own mantra. In conclusion this means > > that the multi-mantra policy is a sort of a disguise, to > > cover up other reasons *why* one should get individual > > instruction, > > The most important and obvious reason is that one needs > to learn TM from a trained TM teacher. In my experience, > that was what TM teachers always emphasized when they were > asked why one couldn't just tell a friend one's mantra and > save them the instruction fee. > Blablabla. They emphasized as you say, but it is said in the intro lecture that everybody gets his own mantra based on criteria only a TM teacher was able to follow, which is of course a lie. That makes it clear that you have to get the instruction personally. If you would tell to the people that all get the same mantra, you would have to come up with a different story, why they need individual instruction. > > and *why* one should learn it in the first place. > > I don't recall this having been given as a reason why > one should learn TM in the first place. See above.
