[FairfieldLife] Re: Adept TM'ers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > > > > > > The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness > > > > > as being: > > > ... > > > > > * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get > > > > > "better" at, as in, for example, learning a musical > > > > > instrument. In theory you can't say "I meditate better > > > > > now than I did five years ago" (unless you > > > > > were doing it wrong five years ago). > > > > I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people > > who are very good at TM. They transcend easily and feel > > good in their practice, with little if any adverse effects > > (unstressing). They may be naturally good at it or it may > > have come from practice or both. > > Ruth, you're going to groan (and I don't blame > you), but I chalk the differences in how some > people react to TM as opposed to the way others > react to TM as predilection, which I then chalk > up to "past life experience." OK, *forget* the > "past life experience" if you don't believe in > that, but "predilection" is Right On in my exper- > ience as both a meditator and as a teacher of > meditation. > > My theory is that those who have "paid their dues" > performing meditative practices in the past are > more likely to "fall into" other, similar practices > in another life. If you don't believe in past lives, > call it pure predilection...the fact that different > human beings have different nervous systems and > likes and dislikes and things that they "resonate" > with and things that they do not. > > Whatever you call it, the outcome is the same. Some > experience what they call transcendence (although I > don't necessarily call it that) very quickly with > TM, and some don't. For some, it takes time before > they "settle down" enough to even sit through 20 > minutes of TM practice. For others, it's like pulling > teeth even after years of TM practice. > > In my opinion, there is "no harm, no foul" in ANY > of these different reactions. I have known people who > *hated* TM, and then tried a meditation practice that > involved focus and concentration, and *loved* it. They > "fell into" that practice immediately, and found *it* > effortless, whereas they always found TM effortful. > Go figure. This is completely contradictory to the > dogma of the TM movement, and yet as a person who has > taught hundreds of people TM and another hundreds of > people other techniques of meditation, I've seen it > happen. > > There is simply no predicting who will "get" a par- > ticular practice. Some will, some won't. No harm, no > foul either way in my opinion. Some will "get" one > practice and not another. Again, no harm, no foul. > > Ritalin -- a form of speed, an amphetamine if I am > not mistaken -- has the effect of *calming down* > certain people. For others, it has the effect of > speed in general. Same with meditation practices. > > Also, contrary to what Richard suggests, there are > some meditation practices that one can *definitely* > get better at over time. Which is a good thing. > Imagine being one of the people who *didn't* fall > easily into TM and being told for years that it was > all your fault. Oh. You probably were. > I don't believe in reincarnation, so I don't buy your theory beyond saying that a persons predilection/make up very likely does effect how meditation works for them. I am curious about what works for what kinds of people and whether there are simply those who are naturals at meditative type practices. For example, there is some indication that people who meditate have characteristics of people who are susceptible to hypnosis: "Walrath and Hamilton (1975) reported that there is some indication that TM is related to hypnotic susceptibility. In their study, although only 44% of the non-TM volunteer subjects were rated as highly susceptible, with scores of 10 or higher on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, 100% of the TM practitioners received scores of 11 or 12 on the Stanford Scale. Walrath and Hamilton concluded that either the practice of TM increases susceptibility to hypnosis or only highly susceptible subjects find sufficient reinforcement in the technique to continue its practice. Using the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and the Field Depth of Hypnosis Inventory to test hypnosis, Van Nuys (1973) also found that hypnotic susceptibility correlated with subjects' initial skill at meditating. On the other hand, Rivers and Spanos (1981) assessed 147 students on absorption, hypnotic susceptibility, three measures of psychological well-being, and their response to meditation, concluding that differences between meditators and nonmeditators may be due to self-selection. Earlier, Spanos et al. (1980a) and Spanos et al. (1978) found that hypnotic susce
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adept TM'ers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > > >> The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness > > >> as being: > > ... > > >> * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better" at, as > > >> in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't > > >> say "I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you > > >> were doing it wrong five years ago). > > > > I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people who are very good at > TM. They transcend easily and feel good in their practice, with little if > any adverse effects (unstressing). They may be naturally good at it or it > may have come from practice or both. In some research the TMO as specifically > chosen meditators who have long experience meditating and have specific types > of experiences. This includes the breath suspension person. The issue is why > some people have certain experiences and others do not. Is it practice? Is > it there particular make-up? I think probably both. What is it in them that > makes them "good at it." Would they have equally positive experiences with > other techniques? I hypothesize that they might, but that is a difficult > question to research because of the strong mindset that develops in > meditators that their technique is the best or "right" technique. Lots of > unanswered questions that are very interesting. > Travis' research on comparing long-term meditating students with shorter-term meditating students suggests that there is a ceiling effect *during* TM within a few months. However, when he looked at the EEG of the two groups immediately prior to the meditation period, he found marked differences. He's interpreted that as meaning that one masters TM quite fast, but that the state effects continue to accumulate over the years. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adept TM'ers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > > > > > > The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness > > > > > as being: > > > ... > > > > > * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get > > > > > "better" at, as in, for example, learning a musical > > > > > instrument. In theory you can't say "I meditate better > > > > > now than I did five years ago" (unless you > > > > > were doing it wrong five years ago). > > > > I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people > > who are very good at TM. They transcend easily and feel > > good in their practice, with little if any adverse effects > > (unstressing). They may be naturally good at it or it may > > have come from practice or both. > > Ruth, you're going to groan (and I don't blame > you), but I chalk the differences in how some > people react to TM as opposed to the way others > react to TM as predilection, which I then chalk > up to "past life experience." OK, *forget* the > "past life experience" if you don't believe in > that, but "predilection" is Right On in my exper- > ience as both a meditator and as a teacher of > meditation. > > My theory is that those who have "paid their dues" > performing meditative practices in the past are > more likely to "fall into" other, similar practices > in another life. If you don't believe in past lives, > call it pure predilection...the fact that different > human beings have different nervous systems and > likes and dislikes and things that they "resonate" > with and things that they do not. > > Whatever you call it, the outcome is the same. Some > experience what they call transcendence (although I > don't necessarily call it that) very quickly with > TM, and some don't. For some, it takes time before > they "settle down" enough to even sit through 20 > minutes of TM practice. For others, it's like pulling > teeth even after years of TM practice. > > In my opinion, there is "no harm, no foul" in ANY > of these different reactions. I have known people who > *hated* TM, and then tried a meditation practice that > involved focus and concentration, and *loved* it. They > "fell into" that practice immediately, and found *it* > effortless, whereas they always found TM effortful. > Go figure. This is completely contradictory to the > dogma of the TM movement, and yet as a person who has > taught hundreds of people TM and another hundreds of > people other techniques of meditation, I've seen it > happen. > > There is simply no predicting who will "get" a par- > ticular practice. Some will, some won't. No harm, no > foul either way in my opinion. Some will "get" one > practice and not another. Again, no harm, no foul. > > Ritalin -- a form of speed, an amphetamine if I am > not mistaken -- has the effect of *calming down* > certain people. For others, it has the effect of > speed in general. Same with meditation practices. > > Also, contrary to what Richard suggests, there are > some meditation practices that one can *definitely* > get better at over time. Which is a good thing. > Imagine being one of the people who *didn't* fall > easily into TM and being told for years that it was > all your fault. Oh. You probably were. > Not my view guv! When I say that I don't think TM depends on aptitude or skill, I can quite believe that there are many other techniques that DO. And with those I would expect the meditator to become more adept over time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Adept TM'ers
ruthsimplicity wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness as being: >> ... >> * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better" at, as in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't say "I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you were doing it wrong five years ago). > > I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people who are very good at > TM. They transcend easily and feel good in their practice, with little if > any adverse effects (unstressing). They may be naturally good at it or it > may have come from practice or both. In some research the TMO as specifically > chosen meditators who have long experience meditating and have specific types > of experiences. This includes the breath suspension person. The issue is why > some people have certain experiences and others do not. Is it practice? Is > it there particular make-up? I think probably both. What is it in them that > makes them "good at it." Would they have equally positive experiences with > other techniques? I hypothesize that they might, but that is a difficult > question to research because of the strong mindset that develops in > meditators that their technique is the best or "right" technique. Lots of > unanswered questions that are very interesting. One teacher of ayurveda referred to this in a workshop. Not just TM but meditation in general. Vata people tend to have flashes or fleeting glimpse of transcendence. They are most likely to have "lots of thoughts." Kapha people on the other hand being naturally calm tend to have much deeper and lasting experiences. Ever wonder why increasing ojas was recommended? Of course kapha people might also fall asleep during medtiation. Pitta people are somewhere in-between. Most all the yogic herbal practices are for calming, herbs such as ashwaganda for instance.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adept TM'ers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > > > > The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness > > > > as being: > > ... > > > > * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get > > > > "better" at, as in, for example, learning a musical > > > > instrument. In theory you can't say "I meditate better > > > > now than I did five years ago" (unless you > > > > were doing it wrong five years ago). > > I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people > who are very good at TM. They transcend easily and feel > good in their practice, with little if any adverse effects > (unstressing). They may be naturally good at it or it may > have come from practice or both. Ruth, you're going to groan (and I don't blame you), but I chalk the differences in how some people react to TM as opposed to the way others react to TM as predilection, which I then chalk up to "past life experience." OK, *forget* the "past life experience" if you don't believe in that, but "predilection" is Right On in my exper- ience as both a meditator and as a teacher of meditation. My theory is that those who have "paid their dues" performing meditative practices in the past are more likely to "fall into" other, similar practices in another life. If you don't believe in past lives, call it pure predilection...the fact that different human beings have different nervous systems and likes and dislikes and things that they "resonate" with and things that they do not. Whatever you call it, the outcome is the same. Some experience what they call transcendence (although I don't necessarily call it that) very quickly with TM, and some don't. For some, it takes time before they "settle down" enough to even sit through 20 minutes of TM practice. For others, it's like pulling teeth even after years of TM practice. In my opinion, there is "no harm, no foul" in ANY of these different reactions. I have known people who *hated* TM, and then tried a meditation practice that involved focus and concentration, and *loved* it. They "fell into" that practice immediately, and found *it* effortless, whereas they always found TM effortful. Go figure. This is completely contradictory to the dogma of the TM movement, and yet as a person who has taught hundreds of people TM and another hundreds of people other techniques of meditation, I've seen it happen. There is simply no predicting who will "get" a par- ticular practice. Some will, some won't. No harm, no foul either way in my opinion. Some will "get" one practice and not another. Again, no harm, no foul. Ritalin -- a form of speed, an amphetamine if I am not mistaken -- has the effect of *calming down* certain people. For others, it has the effect of speed in general. Same with meditation practices. Also, contrary to what Richard suggests, there are some meditation practices that one can *definitely* get better at over time. Which is a good thing. Imagine being one of the people who *didn't* fall easily into TM and being told for years that it was all your fault. Oh. You probably were.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adept TM'ers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > >> The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness > >> as being: > ... > >> * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better" at, as > >> in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't > >> say "I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you > >> were doing it wrong five years ago). > I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people who are very good at TM. They transcend easily and feel good in their practice, with little if any adverse effects (unstressing). They may be naturally good at it or it may have come from practice or both. In some research the TMO as specifically chosen meditators who have long experience meditating and have specific types of experiences. This includes the breath suspension person. The issue is why some people have certain experiences and others do not. Is it practice? Is it there particular make-up? I think probably both. What is it in them that makes them "good at it." Would they have equally positive experiences with other techniques? I hypothesize that they might, but that is a difficult question to research because of the strong mindset that develops in meditators that their technique is the best or "right" technique. Lots of unanswered questions that are very interesting.
