--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <richard@...> wrote:
> > > But the TM technique always insisted one concentrate > > > (if "concentrate" is the right word) on "hearing" > > > the subtle sound of the syllable - with no reference > > > given to where ones vision (perhaps a better > > > expression is "inner vision") might be centred. > > > > mjackson74: > > I'm surprised the TM purists have not taken you to > > task for suggesting the technique can be improved. > > > Because this isn't a good description of TM? How can you > improve on something you can't even describe? > > There's no 'concentration' involved in TM practice, nor > is 'hearing' the sound of a syllable, nor 'inner vision'. > > These are all Buddhist meditation techniques - not TM. > > LoL! TM is a technique to start a process. It seems pretty automatic after that. As in inveterate tinkerer, what was described here is basically another technique. The change turns it in to another technique, which the practitioner liked better. It is possible to do another technique that has about the same lack of concentration as TM, for example, you could just sit there without the mantra. This might be more problematical with a beginning meditator, but someone with a lot of silence established can do it easily enough. A family member two generations back learned TM but could not deal with incessant thoughts, and could not grasp the free flow nature of TM, saying 'I want to be told what to do'. So even TM does not seem right for everyone. All the people in my family quit fairly early on. Getting someone to learn a technique probably does not work. The person needs some sense of purpose, internally on their own, to persist with a practice. Why are you doing this? What do you want? Why do you think this might work to achieve that? I think a lot of people learn TM as the behest of others badgering them, which probably partly accounts for the low rate of long-term meditators, something in the range of 10% to 20% of people who learn.
