[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
> > That's 47, BTW. > > > Jesus, Barry. Counting Judy's posts? > Will you ever grow up? > Another perfectly good discussion topic hijacked. Why don't you just tell us where the TM mantras come from? What's the big secret? Fifty years obsfuscation and conning the poor students - this is outrageous behavior. Why can't you TMers just be honest? Stop the lying! Maharishi's secret! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/161709
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
>From Larry Domash-(Attn: Judy) "Behind these rules of neurophysiological specificity there lies a rich and fascinating theory of the mantras and their application; *to date Maharishi has not published his interpretation of this theory*, although he has indicated a desire to do so." MMY still hasn't and apparently won't. So you see Judy, it will always be controversial, that is, the mystery of the mantras vis-a-vis TM! We know basically where they come from but how MMY arrived at what he did is his secret!, which is buried in his mind and won't see the light of day! It's gotta make you wonder.I guess you're pleased just taking MMY's word for it, so be it! >From the History of TM by Larry Domash (link below). http://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/msg/ca2a85b2ebe3f495?&q=domash+collected+group%3Aalt.meditation.transcendental
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Like conveniently forgetting that my remarks about buildings falling were made in the context of an article by a physicist? - Original Message From: authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:01:38 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think the distinction was implicit in what Curtisdeltablues > > > > > said, but Judy missed it. Now that she understands it, I think > > > > > we're all pretty much in agreement. > > > > > > > > Angela. Every single time you venture to > > > > suss out my thinking, you fall flat on your > > > > face, and this is no exception. You're so > > > > wildly off-base here I don't know how to > > > > begin to go about straightening you out. > > > > > > > > Just stick to commenting on what people > > > > *say*, not what you imagine them to have > > > > understood. You'll be a lot better off. > > > > > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > > > > > If we had a nickel for every time YOU > > > have done this, we'd be able to afford > > > to payt the two shyster-Governors to > > > tell us how high we are. :-) > > > > No, see, the "black" here is to do it > > *cluelessly* , the way Angela does it-- > > and the way you do it as well. Both of > > you are so convinced of your own > > wonderfulness, of your own self- > > importance, that you don't think you > > need to pay attention to what people > > actually say. > > As opposed to...uh...reacting to having > it pointed out that you do *exactly* the > same thing you're accusing Angela of, and > far more frequently, by getting all uppity > and defensive? :-) This is an example, BTW, of what I'm talking about: You didn't pay attention to what I actually said, so your comment is a non sequitur. > I think the "black" that you're trying to > convey is that you are always RIGHT when you > claim to know what someone here is "really" > thinking when they post, or what their "real" > intent was behind the post, or when you add > one of your famous "Translation: " comments > to change what the poster actually said into > what you think they said. :-) Nope, not always (another example). But I'm a lot better at it than you or Angela, because I *pay attention* to what people say and base my remarks on that rather than just consulting my imagination. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the distinction was implicit in what > Curtisdeltablues > > > > > > said, but Judy missed it. Now that she understands it, I > think > > > > > > we're all pretty much in agreement. > > > > > > > > > > Angela. Every single time you venture to > > > > > suss out my thinking, you fall flat on your > > > > > face, and this is no exception. You're so > > > > > wildly off-base here I don't know how to > > > > > begin to go about straightening you out. > > > > > > > > > > Just stick to commenting on what people > > > > > *say*, not what you imagine them to have > > > > > understood. You'll be a lot better off. > > > > > > > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > > > > > > > If we had a nickel for every time YOU > > > > have done this, we'd be able to afford > > > > to payt the two shyster-Governors to > > > > tell us how high we are. :-) > > > > > > No, see, the "black" here is to do it > > > *cluelessly*, the way Angela does it-- > > > and the way you do it as well. Both of > > > you are so convinced of your own > > > wonderfulness, of your own self- > > > importance, that you don't think you > > > need to pay attention to what people > > > actually say. > > > > As opposed to...uh...reacting to having > > it pointed out that you do *exactly* the > > same thing you're accusing Angela of, and > > far more frequently, by getting all uppity > > and defensive? :-) > > This is an example, BTW, of what I'm talking > about: You didn't pay attention to what I > actually said, so your comment is a non > sequitur. > > > I think the "black" that you're trying to > > convey is that you are always RIGHT when you > > claim to know what someone here is "really" > > thinking when they post, or what their "real" > > intent was behind the post, or when you add > > one of your famous "Translation:" comments > > to change what the poster actually said into > > what you think they said. :-) > > Nope, not always (another example). But I'm a > lot better at it than you or Angela, because I > *pay attention* to what people say and base my > remarks on that rather than just consulting my > imagination. 48. Compulsive posters with ego issues are so easy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > No, see, the "black" here is to do it > > *cluelessly*, the way Angela does it-- > > and the way you do it as well. Both of > > you are so convinced of your own > > wonderfulness, of your own self- > > importance, that you don't think you > > need to pay attention to what people > > actually say. > > As opposed to...uh...reacting to having > it pointed out that you do *exactly* the > same thing you're accusing Angela of, and > far more frequently, by getting all uppity > and defensive? :-) > > I think the "black" that you're trying to > convey is that you are always RIGHT when you > claim to know what someone here is "really" > thinking when they post, or what their "real" > intent was behind the post, or when you add > one of your famous "Translation:" comments > to change what the poster actually said into > what you think they said. :-) > > That's 47, BTW. :-) :-) :-) Jesus, Barry. Counting Judy's posts? Will you ever grow up?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think the distinction was implicit in what Curtisdeltablues > > > > > said, but Judy missed it. Now that she understands it, I think > > > > > we're all pretty much in agreement. > > > > > > > > Angela. Every single time you venture to > > > > suss out my thinking, you fall flat on your > > > > face, and this is no exception. You're so > > > > wildly off-base here I don't know how to > > > > begin to go about straightening you out. > > > > > > > > Just stick to commenting on what people > > > > *say*, not what you imagine them to have > > > > understood. You'll be a lot better off. > > > > > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > > > > > If we had a nickel for every time YOU > > > have done this, we'd be able to afford > > > to payt the two shyster-Governors to > > > tell us how high we are. :-) > > > > No, see, the "black" here is to do it > > *cluelessly*, the way Angela does it-- > > and the way you do it as well. Both of > > you are so convinced of your own > > wonderfulness, of your own self- > > importance, that you don't think you > > need to pay attention to what people > > actually say. > > As opposed to...uh...reacting to having > it pointed out that you do *exactly* the > same thing you're accusing Angela of, and > far more frequently, by getting all uppity > and defensive? :-) This is an example, BTW, of what I'm talking about: You didn't pay attention to what I actually said, so your comment is a non sequitur. > I think the "black" that you're trying to > convey is that you are always RIGHT when you > claim to know what someone here is "really" > thinking when they post, or what their "real" > intent was behind the post, or when you add > one of your famous "Translation:" comments > to change what the poster actually said into > what you think they said. :-) Nope, not always (another example). But I'm a lot better at it than you or Angela, because I *pay attention* to what people say and base my remarks on that rather than just consulting my imagination.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think the distinction was implicit in what Curtisdeltablues > > > > said, but Judy missed it. Now that she understands it, I think > > > > we're all pretty much in agreement. > > > > > > Angela. Every single time you venture to > > > suss out my thinking, you fall flat on your > > > face, and this is no exception. You're so > > > wildly off-base here I don't know how to > > > begin to go about straightening you out. > > > > > > Just stick to commenting on what people > > > *say*, not what you imagine them to have > > > understood. You'll be a lot better off. > > > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > > > If we had a nickel for every time YOU > > have done this, we'd be able to afford > > to payt the two shyster-Governors to > > tell us how high we are. :-) > > No, see, the "black" here is to do it > *cluelessly*, the way Angela does it-- > and the way you do it as well. Both of > you are so convinced of your own > wonderfulness, of your own self- > importance, that you don't think you > need to pay attention to what people > actually say. As opposed to...uh...reacting to having it pointed out that you do *exactly* the same thing you're accusing Angela of, and far more frequently, by getting all uppity and defensive? :-) I think the "black" that you're trying to convey is that you are always RIGHT when you claim to know what someone here is "really" thinking when they post, or what their "real" intent was behind the post, or when you add one of your famous "Translation:" comments to change what the poster actually said into what you think they said. :-) That's 47, BTW. :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > wrote: > > > > > > I think the distinction was implicit in what Curtisdeltablues > > > said, but Judy missed it. Now that she understands it, I think > > > we're all pretty much in agreement. > > > > Angela. Every single time you venture to > > suss out my thinking, you fall flat on your > > face, and this is no exception. You're so > > wildly off-base here I don't know how to > > begin to go about straightening you out. > > > > Just stick to commenting on what people > > *say*, not what you imagine them to have > > understood. You'll be a lot better off. > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > If we had a nickel for every time YOU > have done this, we'd be able to afford > to payt the two shyster-Governors to > tell us how high we are. :-) No, see, the "black" here is to do it *cluelessly*, the way Angela does it-- and the way you do it as well. Both of you are so convinced of your own wonderfulness, of your own self- importance, that you don't think you need to pay attention to what people actually say. Angela doesn't even bother to make sure she's responding to the right post (see #161689, for example, which was actually another response to the post of mine quoted above), or that she has the correct referent of a pronoun (see #161640). Just slapdash, in other words, sloppy, slipshod, intellectually lazy. Neither of you thinks there's any need to check out the reality to see whether it's in accord with your fantasies before you indulge them. How you'd *like* things to be takes precedence in your minds over how things actually are. (And no, I'm not talking about "Truth" here, just garden-variety relative on-the-record facts that are accessible to everyone.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > wrote: > > > > I think the distinction was implicit in what Curtisdeltablues > > said, but Judy missed it. Now that she understands it, I think > > we're all pretty much in agreement. > > Angela. Every single time you venture to > suss out my thinking, you fall flat on your > face, and this is no exception. You're so > wildly off-base here I don't know how to > begin to go about straightening you out. > > Just stick to commenting on what people > *say*, not what you imagine them to have > understood. You'll be a lot better off. Pot. Kettle. Black. If we had a nickel for every time YOU have done this, we'd be able to afford to payt the two shyster-Governors to tell us how high we are. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
tertonzeno wrote: > > ---This historical background is quite fascinating, but > > limited in relavance as I see the situation. For example, > > I haven't found any good techniques associated with the > > Sri Yantra. There's the Sri Vidya mantra which I have > > chanted (and discarded in favor of others), and the > > Lalita Sahasranama chant (available from Ammachi), which > > is powerful but I listen to other chants. > > > > What's the message and conclusion associated with the > > fact that SBS used the Sri Yantra as a devotional icon? > > Historians don't know exactly why the Dasanami Swamis adopted the tantric point of view and began to worship Sri in the form of Lalita or Tripurasundari. All we know is that they did so. Today all the Saraswati Dasanami Swamis pay allegiance to the Sri Chakra and to the Goddess of Learning, Saraswati. But my point was that Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was a Dasanami Swammi who worshipped Saraswati in the form of Tripurasundari, just like his guru did, and just like all the other Saraswati Dasanmai Swamis. It is incumbent on all the Saraswati Swamis to meditate on the bija mantra of Saraswati, just like I do. It is pretty obvious, at least to me, that Brahmanada Saraswati passed the Saraswati bija to Marshy. So, in answer to Billy's question: Yes, the TM mantras came from Guru Dev who got them from his guru. This is no secret. > > That because he did this I'm supposed to go out and buy > > a Sri Yantra? > > But you went out and bought yourself a bija mantra from Marshy to meditate on, assuming that your mantra was the bija mantra of Saraswati - I don't know. If you want to practice bhakti yoga like the Saraswati Swamis you'd probably at least want to inscribe a Sri Yantra with the bija of Saraswati, with the ashes of your duni fire, or at least place the mark of the sect on your forehead. Otherwise you could be meditating on the Sri Yantra as if it were a bija mantra. Whatever you enjoy, I guess. > > > There is only ONE Sri Yantra associated with the Sri > > > Vidya sect - the one Shankaracharya placed on the mandir > > > at Sringeri. On it are inscribed the mantras of the Sri > > > Vidya sect. All thirteen bija mantras are innumerated in > > > the Saundaryalahari, composed by Shankaracharya. Among > > > the mantras is the bija mantra of Saraswati, that is, Sri, > > > the Goddess of Learning, worshiped by all the Swamis of > > > the Saraswati sect founded by Shankaracharya. All the > > > Dasanami Swamis have appeneded to thir name - Saraswati. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the distinction was implicit in what Curtisdeltablues > said, but Judy missed it. Now that she understands it, I think > we're all pretty much in agreement. Angela. Every single time you venture to suss out my thinking, you fall flat on your face, and this is no exception. You're so wildly off-base here I don't know how to begin to go about straightening you out. Just stick to commenting on what people *say*, not what you imagine them to have understood. You'll be a lot better off.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
On Jan 20, 2008, at 4:22 PM, tertonzeno wrote: ---This historical background is quite fascinating, but limited in relavance as I see the situation. For example, I haven't found any good techniques associated with the Sri Yantra. There's the Sri Vidya mantra which I have chanted (and discarded in favor of others), and the Lalita Sahasranama chant (available from Ammachi), which is powerful but I listen to other chants. What's the message and conclusion associated with the fact that SBS used the Sri Yantra as a devotional icon? That because he did this I'm supposed to go out and buy a Sri Yantra? His Sri Yantra was merely an external form. His inner practice was Sri Vidya. So if you were interested in that, you'd be initiated into Sri Vidya in either it's samaya, mishra or kaula versions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
---This historical background is quite fascinating, but limited in relavance as I see the situation. For example, I haven't found any good techniques associated with the Sri Yantra. There's the Sri Vidya mantra which I have chanted (and discarded in favor of others), and the Lalita Sahasranama chant (available from Ammachi), which is powerful but I listen to other chants. What's the message and conclusion associated with the fact that SBS used the Sri Yantra as a devotional icon? That because he did this I'm supposed to go out and buy a Sri Yantra? In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > >>> There's only one Sri Yantra, Bharat2, associated > >>> with the Sri Vidya sect, and that is the Sri Chakra. > >>> > >>> > > Bhairatu wrote: > > > >> My point was that many yantras have bij mantras on them > >> so you can't claim that Sri Yantra is the source. > >> > >> > > There is only ONE Sri Yantra associated with the Sri > > Vidya sect - the one Shankaracharya placed on the mandir > > at Sringeri. On it are inscribed the mantras of the Sri > > Vidya sect. All thirteen bija mantras are innumerated in > > the Saundaryalahari, composed by Shankaracharya. Among > > the mantras is the bija mantra of Saraswati, that is, Sri, > > the Goddess of Learning, worshiped by all the Swamis of > > the Saraswati sect founded by Shankaracharya. All the > > Dasanami Swamis have appeneded to thir name - Saraswati. > > > > > You still didn't answer my question: can you read Devanagri? >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: >>> On Behalf Of authfriend > Not everyone thought his comments were "unsubstantial." > I found many of them extremely meaty. He has an almost > Zenlike knack for succinctness. That's what enabled him > to make so many posts. > I agree that many of them were substantial, but most were unnecessary "me too" posts >>> I can't recall Lawson's *ever* making a "me too" post. >>> I think that was one of the comments you made that >>> really bugged him, because it was just off the wall. >>> >>> , and despite repeated requests >>> from many people to cut back, he couldn't restrain himself. >>> He felt that his posts were unappreciated, as I >>> said to start with. Obviously you don't tell >>> somebody to cut back posts you appreciate. >>> >> No? Even your *supporters* were asking you >> to post less, Judy. And you categorically >> refused, as did Lawson, as did Shemp. The >> posting limits were the result. >> > > Just as a followup, I should point out that > yesterday, in less than 24 hours, you made 33 > posts. Those posts were mainly you either > rehashing old arguments that you've been argu- > ing about for 14 years on this forum or another, > and a few token posts dissing people you don't > like and trying to "lessen" them in the eyes > of other posters. > > If the posting limits had *not* been put into > effect, and you continued to post at the same > rate, you'd easily rack up over 200 posts for the > week. How many of the people who "appreciate" > your posts here do you think still would if > you were allowed to post as much as you clearly > want to? > > I think that what many of us "appreciate" most > about your posts is that now, under the new > posting limits, you've often compulsively used > them all up by Monday morning, and we can spend > the rest of the week free of them. The same would > be true of Lawson if he were still around, but > he'd "foul out on posts" by mid-day Saturday. > > And Shemp will probably come off his two-week > hiatus full of bile and go over the limit within > a few days, and then we'll be free of his posts > for at least a month. I'm a big *fan* of the > posting limits. :-) Do you suppose that these folks might be obsessive compulsive? :D :D :D (Oh no, they probably believe that's the "spontaneity of TM.")
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Richard J. Williams wrote: >>> There's only one Sri Yantra, Bharat2, associated >>> with the Sri Vidya sect, and that is the Sri Chakra. >>> >>> > Bhairatu wrote: > >> My point was that many yantras have bij mantras on them >> so you can't claim that Sri Yantra is the source. >> >> > There is only ONE Sri Yantra associated with the Sri > Vidya sect - the one Shankaracharya placed on the mandir > at Sringeri. On it are inscribed the mantras of the Sri > Vidya sect. All thirteen bija mantras are innumerated in > the Saundaryalahari, composed by Shankaracharya. Among > the mantras is the bija mantra of Saraswati, that is, Sri, > the Goddess of Learning, worshiped by all the Swamis of > the Saraswati sect founded by Shankaracharya. All the > Dasanami Swamis have appeneded to thir name - Saraswati. > > You still didn't answer my question: can you read Devanagri?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:29 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: OK. I was getting the impression that there was a disagreement on the use of suggestions because there was not a clear distinction made between getting ready to meditate and meditating. It looks like Vaj and Angela had the same impression as I did. I agree that once meditation begins the meditator is on his or her own and I make no claims about what meditation "is." The thing is "preparing the field" (as that beginning phase of framing is technically called) determines what happens in that field of experience. So there is a type of hypnotic suggestion/post-hypnotic suggestion going: and the meditation session cannot be removed from that framework. In some forms of meditation that field is dissolved at the end. In effortless meditation one learns to dissolve even the idea of meditating or any framework of meditator, meditation process or meditated upon. As long as one allows that field (of meditative expectation) to arise, even subconsciously -- you are still in the realm hypnotic/post-hypnotic suggestion/entrancement.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
On Jan 20, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ]On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 7:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! Actually when I went to Devi Bhava there were only about 50 of us. Very intimate setting. Cool. What year was that? These days there are usually 2000-4000 there, in the US. With only 50 people there, what did she do all night? Did it last all night? I believe it was her first or second tour. It lasted about 3 hours. And let's just say we all got a lot of hugs. The line for hugs was often just a few people, so you'd just keep going back again and again. A lot of people got mantras. I got several! Many of us received shaktipat at the third eye or above. And then we all just would sing these ecstatic bhajans with her disciples from India who were simply enrapt. That rapture inspired everyone else to join in.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
I think the distinction was implicit in what Curtisdeltablues said, but Judy
missed it. Now that she understands it, I think we're all pretty much in
agreement.
- Original Message
From: ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:29:24 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I certainly do. That's why Vaj's question was a non
> sequitur; it's not a point of contention.
>
> Key words: "Before they start meditating."
>
> As I said to Peter, you can't "suggest" something
> (a) that you can't describe adequately and (b)
> that is (for most people) an entirely novel
> experience (i.e., transcendence) . The subject has
> to have some frame of reference for what is being
> suggested, but transcendence is the *absence* of
> any sources of reference at all, by definition.
>
> Certain suggestions are made during the checking
> procedure for specific experiences for which there
> *is* a frame of reference ("some quietness, some
> silence," e.g.), but once past those, the
> meditator is on his or her own.
OK. I was getting the impression that there was a disagreement on the
use of suggestions because there was not a clear distinction made
between getting ready to meditate and meditating. It looks like Vaj
and Angela had the same impression as I did. I agree that once
meditation begins the meditator is on his or her own and I make no
claims about what meditation "is."
>
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Judy wrote: > This discussion was about *whether* he had said > anything about the origin of the technique. > Actually I think the discussion was about the origin of the TM mantras. It's obvious from the discussion that some TM teachers didn't have a clue about this. What is amazing is that here we have hundreds of people getting other people to mutter non-sense syllables to themselves for, what, fifty years, and they didn't know what they were muttering and where the non-sense syllables even came from. This is outrageous! Billy wrote: "It appears MMY will be going to the grave without revealing where the mantras came from, how they were formulated and if there is any traditional lineage, aka a Parampara..." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/161363 > It's really just a way of avoiding the issue. We > see it here all the time. If you diss the person > quoting MMY as a TB, then you don't have to actually > consider whatever it was MMY had been quoted as > saying. Somehow the purported "gullibility" of the > person doing the quoting automatically makes > whatever they were quoting null and void. > So, why are you avoiding the issue? Where do the TM mantras come from? Is there a reading comprehension problem on this forum?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I certainly do. That's why Vaj's question was a non
> sequitur; it's not a point of contention.
>
> Key words: "Before they start meditating."
>
> As I said to Peter, you can't "suggest" something
> (a) that you can't describe adequately and (b)
> that is (for most people) an entirely novel
> experience (i.e., transcendence). The subject has
> to have some frame of reference for what is being
> suggested, but transcendence is the *absence* of
> any sources of reference at all, by definition.
>
> Certain suggestions are made during the checking
> procedure for specific experiences for which there
> *is* a frame of reference ("some quietness, some
> silence," e.g.), but once past those, the
> meditator is on his or her own.
OK. I was getting the impression that there was a disagreement on the
use of suggestions because there was not a clear distinction made
between getting ready to meditate and meditating. It looks like Vaj
and Angela had the same impression as I did. I agree that once
meditation begins the meditator is on his or her own and I make no
claims about what meditation "is."
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
> > mailander111@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Brilliant.
> >
> > Not. Non sequitur, in fact.
> >
> > > From: Vaj vajranatha@
> > >
> > > On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:41 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > >
> > > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same
> > > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion"
> > > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its
> > > face.
> > >
> > > What don't you find suggestive about "sit easily"?
>
> Non sequitur from what? I think that teaching TM and checking
> TM involves a number of suggestions to put people in an open and
> relaxed frame of mind before they start meditating. No big
> deal. Don't people at least agree on that?
I certainly do. That's why Vaj's question was a non
sequitur; it's not a point of contention.
Key words: "Before they start meditating."
As I said to Peter, you can't "suggest" something
(a) that you can't describe adequately and (b)
that is (for most people) an entirely novel
experience (i.e., transcendence). The subject has
to have some frame of reference for what is being
suggested, but transcendence is the *absence* of
any sources of reference at all, by definition.
Certain suggestions are made during the checking
procedure for specific experiences for which there
*is* a frame of reference ("some quietness, some
silence," e.g.), but once past those, the
meditator is on his or her own.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 7:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! Actually when I went to Devi Bhava there were only about 50 of us. Very intimate setting. Cool. What year was that? These days there are usually 2000-4000 there, in the US. With only 50 people there, what did she do all night? Did it last all night? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1233 - Release Date: 1/19/2008 6:37 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Ruth (snipped) :Non sequitur from what? I think that teaching TM and checking TM involves a number of suggestions to put people in an open and relaxed frame of mind before they start meditating. No big deal. Don't people at least agree on that? Me (snipped): Yes. And that is totally the key to the whole thing. And, the relaxation you get will depend on previous programming and resultant brain states. But you start there. And then you provide a vehicle for continuing in that direction, so that now you've got stimulus and response set up. After that you provide a story (necessarily ridiculous once you transcend it--which is the point of all good stories) so that the individual organism will continue the cycle of stimulus and response over time. - Original Message From: ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 10:26:24 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander > mailander111@ wrote: > > > > Brilliant. > > Not. Non sequitur, in fact. > > > From: Vaj vajranatha@ > > > > On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:41 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same > > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" > > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its > > face. > > > > What don't you find suggestive about "sit easily"? Non sequitur from what? I think that teaching TM and checking TM involves a number of suggestions to put people in an open and relaxed frame of mind before they start meditating. No big deal. Don't people at least agree on that? > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Judy (snipped): not in fact Me (all butt): but in spirit. - Original Message From: authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:33:21 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander wrote: > > Brilliant. Not. Non sequitur, in fact. > From: Vaj > > On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:41 PM, authfriend wrote: > > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its > face. > > What don't you find suggestive about "sit easily"? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Judy (snipped): As far as credibility is concerned, notice that
he himself *told* us he wasn't always regular.
Me (castrated and evicerated): What? Turq not regular??
What could you possibly mean, Judy??
How can that which is eternal not be "regular?"
I mean in the sense of regularly occurring.
In the victorian (Judyan) sense of "regular," however, there's nothing more
irregular than Turq and we all know it and thank God {to the extent that there
is [one][who isn't also everything]} and all the relatives for.
- Original Message
From: authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:23:39 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "lurkernomore200020 00"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Vaj wrote
>
> > I don't even think Lawson was even meditating at the time, but
> > he was really into the "TM preacher" thang.
>
> That's kinda where Lawson fell a little short in the credibililty
> dept. He was Mr. Positive Benefits of TM, Mr. Important to
> Follow the Progam, but when it came to practicing the tecnique
> himself, he didn't, for some reason or another.
Yes, he did, just not always regularly.
As far as credibility is concerned, notice that
he himself *told* us he wasn't always regular.
He was quite open about it and quite clear that
it was a struggle for him to sit twice a day,
although he knew he should.
At one point he wrote a little scenario
illustrating what it was like for him with his
attention deficit disorder (which we also know
about because he told us): He'd have the thought
that it was time to meditate, then immediately
get distracted by something else, over and over
again.
It was a kind of catch-22: when he did his
program regularly, he had a lot less trouble with
his ADD; but the ADD made it really difficult for
him to do his program regularly.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > mailander111@ wrote: > > > > Brilliant. > > Not. Non sequitur, in fact. > > > From: Vaj vajranatha@ > > > > On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:41 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same > > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" > > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its > > face. > > > > What don't you find suggestive about "sit easily"? Non sequitur from what? I think that teaching TM and checking TM involves a number of suggestions to put people in an open and relaxed frame of mind before they start meditating. No big deal. Don't people at least agree on that? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same > > > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" > > > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its > > > face. > > > > I agree with this. > > I'm not sure I do. The "intro lectures" in TM > provide a great *deal* of suggestion, all *before* > the person sits down to meditate. Since the teach- > ing is canned, and no one can ever experience TM > *without* the "preprogramming" of the intro lectures, > for me the question of whether suggestion is part of > the process is an open one. I guess we'll never "know". I was using the flimsy, but to me compelling, evidence that my own meditation has not changed in it subjective charm despite the fact that my beliefs about it have changed completely. > > > Meditation invokes a state of mind that is not > > dependent on expectation. > > But it is certainly *open* to expectation. I think that expectations shape how we feel about the state's value. > > > My recent experiences in meditation seem > > like evidence for this as well. > > Again, what would the experience of meditation be > like if we had *no* foreknowledge of what it was > "supposed" to be like, from *anyone*? It's an > open question, because as far as I can tell it's > never happened in the history of meditation. The > student *always* has some expectation of the > practice; otherwise he wouldn't be starting it. > The unanswered question is whether this expectation > affects the experiences of the meditation itself. I think there is some hope for a secular meditation to help answer some of these questions. There wont be no expectations, but it wont be so full of value judgments and beliefs about it's meaning. I am very interested in a context for meditation that doesn't include the whole tractor trailer of beliefs. This is what I am attempting to discover for myself. I enjoy the perspective of sitting quietly and not having it mean that it is cultivating anything spiritual. But the simplicity of that is a form of spirituality as I understand it, although I wouldn't choose that word. I think of it as an aspect of my human nature. Work in progress! > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > > > > > > > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > > > > > > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > > > > > > > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear > > > > > > distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or > > > meditative > > > > > > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the > > > language > > > > > > used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no > > > foul. > > > > > > > > > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > > > > > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > > > > > we understand TM too differently to have a > > > > > meaningful discussion. > > > > > > > > You know Judy, I'm the one who was certified to teach meditation > > > > by MMY, and practice hypnotherapy by John Grinder in NLP. So if > > > > anyone in this discussion should be pulling the "meaningful > > > > discussion" card, it should be me. But the fact is that terms > > > > like hypnosis and meditation are terms referring to internal > > > > states with no scientific consensus about what they refer to. > > > > My opinion is not formed, yours seems to have already formed. I > > > > accept your opinion about meditation as based on your personal > > > > experience. I don't believe the same is true of your opinion of > > > > hypnosis, or that we are even using the term in the same way. > > > > > > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same > > > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" > > > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its > > > face. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
> > There's only one Sri Yantra, Bharat2, associated > > with the Sri Vidya sect, and that is the Sri Chakra. > > Bhairatu wrote: > My point was that many yantras have bij mantras on them > so you can't claim that Sri Yantra is the source. > There is only ONE Sri Yantra associated with the Sri Vidya sect - the one Shankaracharya placed on the mandir at Sringeri. On it are inscribed the mantras of the Sri Vidya sect. All thirteen bija mantras are innumerated in the Saundaryalahari, composed by Shankaracharya. Among the mantras is the bija mantra of Saraswati, that is, Sri, the Goddess of Learning, worshiped by all the Swamis of the Saraswati sect founded by Shankaracharya. All the Dasanami Swamis have appeneded to thir name - Saraswati. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was a Dasanami Swami - his bija mantra was the bija of Saraswati. This mantra was given to Marshy who then gave it to me. I don't understand why you are bing so argumentative about this. It is more than obvious that Marshy got the bija mantra of Saraswati from his guru, a Saraswati Swami, and that Swami Brahmanand got it from his guru, Swami Krishnanand Saraswati of Sringeri. > > Do you know what Sri means in Sanskrit? And did you know > > that Tripuransundari is the object of their devotions? > > There is no difference between Sri Herself and Saraswati. > > And like I said, the TM mantra is used in meditation > > on Sri Vidya - Saraswati. > > > Sri has a number of meanings. > According to to the adherents of the Sri Vidya sect, the Sankrit term 'Sri' means Auspicious and 'Vidya' means Knowledge, that is, Transcendental Knowledge. Sri is the Goddess of Learning - worshipped through meditation on the bija mantra of Saraswati. All the Saraswati Dasanamis worship Saraswati, Sri Vidya. All the Saraswati Dasanamis practice transcendental meditation on Sri. Your attempts to mislead are without merit, Sir. According to the Swami Svarupanand Saraswati, a direct diciple of Brahmanand Saraswati, Guru Dev used to give out bija mantras based on Ista Devata, that is, Saraswati, otherwise known as Tripurasundari, called Sri, the diety if the Three Cities. You can read more about this is David Renfrew Brook's great books: 'The Secret of the Three Cities' An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism. by Douglas Renfrew Brooks University Of Chicago Press, 1998 http://tinyurl.com/37yzmw 'Auspicious Wisdom' The texts and traditions of Sri Vidya tantrism in South India. by Douglas Renfrew Brooks State University of New York Press, 1992 http://tinyurl.com/3xgfc5
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
That's why I trust it implicitly. - Original Message From: authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:02:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "ruthsimplicity" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "lurkernomore200020 00" > > > wrote: > > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > I wish Lawson were still here. > > > > > > > [Rick wrote:] > > > > > Invite him back. 50 per week, though. > > > > > > > > What I wonder is whether Lawson directed his incessant > > > > posting to another venue or just stopped cold turkey. > > > > I can't say that I have been missing him. > > > > > > I don't know if I dare to ask, but how long have all y'all been > > > talking with each other? Is there much repetition? > > > > "Y'all" who, the participants on the forum in general? > > > > FFL was started in 2001, either shortly before or shortly > > after 9/11. But people join and then drop out all the > > time, so the population isn't constant. (I started > > posting here in May 2005, as did a few others who had > > been regulars on alt.m.t, including Lawson, who dropped > > out this past summer because he felt unappreciated. ) > > Uh, not quite the whole story. Yeah, it's the whole story in terms of the question that was asked. But let's look at Barry's imaginative embellishments to the story *he* wants to tell: Lawson was in > the habit (which he claimed was due to a > disorder) of posting impulsively and often, > literally hundreds of posts per week. Not. Average of 104 per week in 2006; and of 83 per week in 2007 (January-March) . So, to > a slightly lesser degree, did Judy and (to > an even greater degree) did Shemp. My 2006 average was just under 100 per week; Shemp's was 63 per week. Barry's version of just about anything is never to be trusted. The FFL > community reacted to being "drowned out" by > these compulsive posters and created the 35- > post-per-week maximum. Nobody, of course, was "drowned out." That some people post more obviously does not mean other people have to post less. > Both Shemp and Judy paid lip service to this > maximum, while often going over the limit. By no more than one or two posts, for me, on the grounds that the number 35 was purely arbitrary--the idea being to reduce the *volume* of posts, not to strictly adhere to a particular number. I was observing the spirit of the limit, in other words, and coming damn close to the "law." One part of his story Barry doesn't tell you is that he was fanatically obsessed by how many posts I (and to a lesser extent certain others) made per week, posting elaborate tallies and several times per week writing long, absurd rants about how going over by one or two per week showed gross disrespect for the community, lack of self-control, self-importance, etc., etc., etc. His current post is just an extension of that obsession. > (Until recently for Judy, when Rick finally > put some "teeth" into what happens if you go > over the limit.) Actually he increased the limit, to 50 per week. > Lawson never even *tried* to control or limit > his posting. He just split before the first > week of posting limits went into effect. He > may *claim* that he left because he "felt > unappreciated, " but that is far from the > whole story. It was the whole story for Lawson. > > There's some repetition, but not a whole lot, I'd say. > > Certain topics come up over and over again, but the > > substance tends to be relatively new each time. > > Or not, depending on the person viewing the > Department of Redundancy Dept. discussion. :-) > > In other words, some people can argue about the > same thing for years and claim that every iter- > ation of the argument is slightly different. > What an unbiased observer might notice is that > the person claiming subtle differences really > *has* been arguing the same topic endlessly for > over a decade. As I said, certain topics come up over and over again, but the substance tends to be relatively new each time. No "in other words" at all, in other words, just Barry's pretensions to be less-biased- than-thou. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
But don't you think that Barry's point of view is just what the doctor
ordered???
For me, your point of view is that--on the grounds that all this is {infact}
that {mosquitoes included}.
- Original Message
From: authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:53:24 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Note that we have here two more examples of
Barry's continuing obsession with the number
of my posts.
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend"
wrote:
> > > He felt that his posts were unappreciated, as I
> > > said to start with. Obviously you don't tell
> > > somebody to cut back posts you appreciate.
> >
> > No? Even your *supporters* were asking you
> > to post less, Judy. And you categorically
> > refused, as did Lawson, as did Shemp. The
> > posting limits were the result.
Actually I never "categorically refused." I
don't think Lawson did either. And to the
extent *anybody* wanted me to cut back, I felt
unappreciated.
> Just as a followup, I should point out that
> yesterday, in less than 24 hours, you made 33
> posts. Those posts were mainly you either
> rehashing old arguments that you've been argu-
> ing about for 14 years on this forum or another,
> and a few token posts dissing people you don't
> like and trying to "lessen" them in the eyes
> of other posters.
Actually this is a highly inaccurate description.
No surprise there.
> If the posting limits had *not* been put into
> effect, and you continued to post at the same
> rate, you'd easily rack up over 200 posts for the
> week.
And yet somehow without posting limits, I rarely
went over 100 posts per week. How many posts I
make per day has to do with how many posts are
being made by others (typically more on the
weekends) and the specific topics that come up.
How many of the people who "appreciate"
> your posts here do you think still would if
> you were allowed to post as much as you clearly
> want to?
Dunno, why don't you ask them?
I appreciated almost all of Lawson's posts, no
matter how many there were.
> I think that what many of us "appreciate" most
> about your posts is that now, under the new
> posting limits, you've often compulsively used
> them all up by Monday morning, and we can spend
> the rest of the week free of them. The same would
> be true of Lawson if he were still around, but
> he'd "foul out on posts" by mid-day Saturday.
>
> And Shemp will probably come off his two-week
> hiatus full of bile and go over the limit within
> a few days, and then we'll be free of his posts
> for at least a month. I'm a big *fan* of the
> posting limits. :-)
Oddly enough, Shemp, Lawson, and I are three of
your sharpest critics here. *Of course* you're a
"fan" of limiting our posts.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Here's my humble vote for best joke of the week: Sounds like someone I know...me! Although I have not had the bottom fall out of my world I did experience the world falling out of my bottom in New Delhi! Life's a blissy turd. - Original Message From: curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:27:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! Exactly. Sad thing is, some people get stuck on that initial phase and never move beyond. When they go to a form of deep meditation, they're often shocked at how 'the bottom drops out' of their 'transcendent' . Usually after that they realize they were simply languishing in a light, blissy trance state, sometimes for decades. Sounds like someone I know...me! Although I have not had the bottom fall out of my world I did experience the world falling out of my bottom in New Delhi! --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Peter wrote: > > > By the way, being trained to teach TM and hypnosis and > > having experienced both here's my take: TM and > > hypnosis are initially identical > > > Exactly. Sad thing is, some people get stuck on that initial phase and > never move beyond. When they go to a form of deep meditation, they're > often shocked at how 'the bottom drops out' of their 'transcendent' . > Usually after that they realize they were simply languishing in a > light, blissy trance state, sometimes for decades. > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Curtis writes (snipped) They both seem to end up in the same place for me subjectively. There is a lack of study comparing the states of mind. These fields have kept each other at arms length. That is where the lack of knowledge of comparing them comes from. Me writes (snipped): Amen brother!! That is part of what I also meant in my last post. Language and meditation are both tools. Understand them both (and how they work in synergy), and you may have/understand a tool for all kinds of mental /social engineering on a global scale. whaddayathink? - Original Message From: curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:16:05 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! > > Curtis, with all due respect, you said: "...I don't know enough about > either state to make clear distinctions. I can't even clearly define > hypnosis or meditative state Judy." > > That appears to be a clear contradiction to what you just said above > it. But nevertheless, you seem to be OK with casually conflating the two. > They both seem to end up in the same place for me subjectively. There is a lack of study comparing the states of mind. These fields have kept each other at arms length. That is where the lack of knowledge of comparing them comes from. In TM studies that try to prove a difference my question is "which hypnosis technique", just as a study showing hypnosis was the "same" as meditation would cause a TMer to say "which meditation technique?" The analysis of the language used to reach the inward states shares many common qualities which doesn't reveal the differences IMO. The process of gaining the state is what I was trained in and I am experienced in teaching both experiences to others. I know how to use each to reach an inward state. But once my mind has gone inward, the distinctions go away experientially. I am OK with casual conflation, but only after a few drinks and if she is really hot. --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > > > > > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > > > > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > > > > > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. > > > > > > > > As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear > > > > distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or meditative > > > > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the language > > > > used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no foul. > > > > > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > > > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > > > we understand TM too differently to have a > > > meaningful discussion. > > > > You know Judy, I'm the one who was certified to teach meditation by > > MMY, and practice hypnotherapy by John Grinder in NLP. So if anyone > > in this discussion should be pulling the "meaningful discussion" card, > > it should be me. But the fact is that terms like hypnosis and > > meditation are terms referring to internal states with no scientific > > consensus about what they refer to. > > > > > Curtis, with all due respect, you said: "...I don't know enough about > either state to make clear distinctions. I can't even clearly define > hypnosis or meditative state Judy." > > That appears to be a clear contradiction to what you just said above > it. But nevertheless, you seem to be OK with casually conflating the two. > > > > > > > My opinion is not formed, yours > > seems to have already formed. I accept your opinion about meditation > > as based on your personal experience. I don't believe the same is > > true of your opinion of hypnosis, or that we are even using the term > > in the same way. > > > > My discussion was based on me admitting that I don't know what these > > terms specifically refer to. If you are coming from a position of > > "knowledge" concerning th
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note that we have here two more examples of > Barry's continuing obsession with the number > of my posts. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > He felt that his posts were unappreciated, as I > > > > said to start with. Obviously you don't tell > > > > somebody to cut back posts you appreciate. > > > > > > No? Even your *supporters* were asking you > > > to post less, Judy. And you categorically > > > refused, as did Lawson, as did Shemp. The > > > posting limits were the result. > > Actually I never "categorically refused." I > don't think Lawson did either. And to the > extent *anybody* wanted me to cut back, I felt > unappreciated. > > > Just as a followup, I should point out that > > yesterday, in less than 24 hours, you made 33 > > posts. Those posts were mainly you either > > rehashing old arguments that you've been argu- > > ing about for 14 years on this forum or another, > > and a few token posts dissing people you don't > > like and trying to "lessen" them in the eyes > > of other posters. > > Actually this is a highly inaccurate description. > No surprise there. > > > If the posting limits had *not* been put into > > effect, and you continued to post at the same > > rate, you'd easily rack up over 200 posts for the > > week. > > And yet somehow without posting limits, I rarely > went over 100 posts per week. How many posts I > make per day has to do with how many posts are > being made by others (typically more on the > weekends) and the specific topics that come up. > > > How many of the people who "appreciate" > > your posts here do you think still would if > > you were allowed to post as much as you clearly > > want to? > > Dunno, why don't you ask them? > > I appreciated almost all of Lawson's posts, no > matter how many there were. > > > I think that what many of us "appreciate" most > > about your posts is that now, under the new > > posting limits, you've often compulsively used > > them all up by Monday morning, and we can spend > > the rest of the week free of them. The same would > > be true of Lawson if he were still around, but > > he'd "foul out on posts" by mid-day Saturday. > > > > And Shemp will probably come off his two-week > > hiatus full of bile and go over the limit within > > a few days, and then we'll be free of his posts > > for at least a month. I'm a big *fan* of the > > posting limits. :-) > > Oddly enough, Shemp, Lawson, and I are three of > your sharpest critics here. *Of course* you're a > "fan" of limiting our posts. That's 42. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
It would be next to impossible to teach something to anyone without providing
some expectation. But children may really be what we think they are: innocent.
And, as I've suggested before, innocence (maintained throughout experience, or
[we hope] at least recovered before we fucking die) innocence is one way of
defining enlightenment (to the extent that it can [in fact] be defined). So if
a child is taught to meditate, it is a completely different ballgame than if an
adult is taught. This is true of teaching language and it is also true of
teaching meditation. This is one of the things I have learned from Marshy, who
really was/is a great man, and his stupid movement {([(i.e. turd)]} is proof
(ROTFL), but I might not have been alert to the lesson unless I'd had
experience in both states of brain-development--meditation and
language--together can be used to enlighten populations or manipulate them all
kinds of ways.
But who (ultimately {if there is an ultimate}) is the manipulator?
- Original Message
From: TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 2:17:50 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same
> > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion"
> > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its
> > face.
>
> I agree with this.
I'm not sure I do. The "intro lectures" in TM
provide a great *deal* of suggestion, all *before*
the person sits down to meditate. Since the teach-
ing is canned, and no one can ever experience TM
*without* the "preprogramming" of the intro lectures,
for me the question of whether suggestion is part of
the process is an open one.
> Meditation invokes a state of mind that is not
> dependent on expectation.
But it is certainly *open* to expectation.
> My recent experiences in meditation seem
> like evidence for this as well.
Again, what would the experience of meditation be
like if we had *no* foreknowledge of what it was
"supposed" to be like, from *anyone*? It's an
open question, because as far as I can tell it's
never happened in the history of meditation. The
student *always* has some expectation of the
practice; otherwise he wouldn't be starting it.
The unanswered question is whether this expectation
affects the experiences of the meditation itself.
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis,
> > > > > > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching
> > > > > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are
> > > > > > just too different to have a meaningful discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear
> > > > > distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or
> > meditative
> > > > > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the
> > language
> > > > > used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no
> > foul.
> > > >
> > > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule
> > > > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense,
> > > > we understand TM too differently to have a
> > > > meaningful discussion.
> > >
> > > You know Judy, I'm the one who was certified to teach meditation
> > > by MMY, and practice hypnotherapy by John Grinder in NLP. So if
> > > anyone in this discussion should be pulling the "meaningful
> > > discussion" card, it should be me. But the fact is that terms
> > > like hypnosis and meditation are terms referring to internal
> > > states with no scientific consensus about what they refer to.
> > > My opinion is not formed, yours seems to have already formed. I
> > > accept your opinion about meditation as based on your personal
> > > experience. I don't believe the same is true of your opinion of
> > > hypnosis, or that we are even using the term in the same way.
> >
> > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same
> > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion"
> > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its
> > face.
> >
>
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Note that we have here two more examples of Barry's continuing obsession with the number of my posts. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > He felt that his posts were unappreciated, as I > > > said to start with. Obviously you don't tell > > > somebody to cut back posts you appreciate. > > > > No? Even your *supporters* were asking you > > to post less, Judy. And you categorically > > refused, as did Lawson, as did Shemp. The > > posting limits were the result. Actually I never "categorically refused." I don't think Lawson did either. And to the extent *anybody* wanted me to cut back, I felt unappreciated. > Just as a followup, I should point out that > yesterday, in less than 24 hours, you made 33 > posts. Those posts were mainly you either > rehashing old arguments that you've been argu- > ing about for 14 years on this forum or another, > and a few token posts dissing people you don't > like and trying to "lessen" them in the eyes > of other posters. Actually this is a highly inaccurate description. No surprise there. > If the posting limits had *not* been put into > effect, and you continued to post at the same > rate, you'd easily rack up over 200 posts for the > week. And yet somehow without posting limits, I rarely went over 100 posts per week. How many posts I make per day has to do with how many posts are being made by others (typically more on the weekends) and the specific topics that come up. How many of the people who "appreciate" > your posts here do you think still would if > you were allowed to post as much as you clearly > want to? Dunno, why don't you ask them? I appreciated almost all of Lawson's posts, no matter how many there were. > I think that what many of us "appreciate" most > about your posts is that now, under the new > posting limits, you've often compulsively used > them all up by Monday morning, and we can spend > the rest of the week free of them. The same would > be true of Lawson if he were still around, but > he'd "foul out on posts" by mid-day Saturday. > > And Shemp will probably come off his two-week > hiatus full of bile and go over the limit within > a few days, and then we'll be free of his posts > for at least a month. I'm a big *fan* of the > posting limits. :-) Oddly enough, Shemp, Lawson, and I are three of your sharpest critics here. *Of course* you're a "fan" of limiting our posts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brilliant. Not. Non sequitur, in fact. > From: Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:41 PM, authfriend wrote: > > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its > face. > > What don't you find suggestive about "sit easily"?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Ruth, please read what I wrote again. Whether > > hypnosis can be ruled out by common sense depends > > on how one understands TM. In my understanding, > > it's a matter of common sense. If it isn't in > > Curtis's understanding, then he and I have vastly > > different understandings. That's all I was saying. > > OK, it depends on how you understand TM. But that isn't a matter > of common sense. It is just your understanding of how TM works. > Which is fine, but not necessarily a matter of common sense. *In the context of my understanding* it's a matter of common sense. See my response to Peter's post for the specifics. In any case, as it turns out, Curtis, Peter, and I do have a similar enough understanding to rule it out, at least with regard to the suggestion aspect of hypnosis in terms of transcendence during TM.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Exactly. Sad thing is, some people get stuck on that initial phase and never move beyond. When they go to a form of deep meditation, they're often shocked at how 'the bottom drops out' of their 'transcendent'. Usually after that they realize they were simply languishing in a light, blissy trance state, sometimes for decades. Sounds like someone I know...me! Although I have not had the bottom fall out of my world I did experience the world falling out of my bottom in New Delhi! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Peter wrote: > > > By the way, being trained to teach TM and hypnosis and > > having experienced both here's my take: TM and > > hypnosis are initially identical > > > Exactly. Sad thing is, some people get stuck on that initial phase and > never move beyond. When they go to a form of deep meditation, they're > often shocked at how 'the bottom drops out' of their 'transcendent'. > Usually after that they realize they were simply languishing in a > light, blissy trance state, sometimes for decades. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Curtis, with all due respect, you said: "...I don't know enough about > > either state to make clear distinctions. I can't even clearly define > > hypnosis or meditative state Judy." > > > > That appears to be a clear contradiction to what you just said above > > it. But nevertheless, you seem to be OK with casually conflating the > two. > > > > They both seem to end up in the same place for me subjectively. There > is a lack of study comparing the states of mind. These fields have > kept each other at arms length. That is where the lack of knowledge of > comparing them comes from. > > In TM studies that try to prove a difference my question is "which > hypnosis technique", just as a study showing hypnosis was the "same" > as meditation would cause a TMer to say "which meditation technique?" > > The analysis of the language used to reach the inward states shares > many common qualities which doesn't reveal the differences IMO. > > The process of gaining the state is what I was trained in and I am > experienced in teaching both experiences to others. I know how to use > each to reach an inward state. But once my mind has gone inward, the > distinctions go away experientially. > > I am OK with casual conflation, but only after a few drinks and if she > is really hot. I think I'm taking this more seriously than you are. No one has ever been able to hypnotize me. Transcendental Mediation fits me like a glove.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Thanks for the information Stu. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > I've been doing some meditation lately. I am experimenting with not > > using the mantra. In past discussions you thought that perhaps it was > > going on unconsciously, and I really have no answer for that. It > > could be. But specifically I've just been sitting, noticing my breath > > and when my mind goes off in a thought,and I remember, I come back to > > noticing my breath. So sitting easily is key. When I use a mantra > > that seems similar, although after 18 years my old advanced long ass > > mantras seem like overkill, so I tend to end up with a shorter > version. > > > There are a couple great meditation teachers who promote > experimentation. You may find helpful. > > Swami Durgananda - Sally Kempton has a book called "The Heart of > Meditation". It suggests different techniques to try. She travels > around a lot, I really liked going to one of her meditation workshops. > Her teacher Muktananda (sp) knew MMY. He promoted experimentation as > well. His autobiography is called "Play of Consciousness" and he > emphasizes the "play" part. > > Adyashanti has some CDs out that can be found used cheap. He has some > guided meditations. His whole thing is about loosing the mantra or the > breath altogether. For him its all about centering attention. It is > even more effortless than TM. I always enjoy coming back to his guided > meditations. > > From what I can gather TM is one size fits all. After a while it > doesn't hurt to come to the practice with a bit of discernment and see > whats at work there. I know that my asana practice done in tandem with > TM has made a huge difference to how attentive I am during TM. Its all > about setting up clear, energetic foundation before sitting down to > practice. > > s. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote > > > I don't even think Lawson was even meditating at the time, but > > he was really into the "TM preacher" thang. > > That's kinda where Lawson fell a little short in the credibililty > dept. He was Mr. Positive Benefits of TM, Mr. Important to > Follow the Progam, but when it came to practicing the tecnique > himself, he didn't, for some reason or another. Yes, he did, just not always regularly. As far as credibility is concerned, notice that he himself *told* us he wasn't always regular. He was quite open about it and quite clear that it was a struggle for him to sit twice a day, although he knew he should. At one point he wrote a little scenario illustrating what it was like for him with his attention deficit disorder (which we also know about because he told us): He'd have the thought that it was time to meditate, then immediately get distracted by something else, over and over again. It was a kind of catch-22: when he did his program regularly, he had a lot less trouble with his ADD; but the ADD made it really difficult for him to do his program regularly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
> > Curtis, with all due respect, you said: "...I don't know enough about > either state to make clear distinctions. I can't even clearly define > hypnosis or meditative state Judy." > > That appears to be a clear contradiction to what you just said above > it. But nevertheless, you seem to be OK with casually conflating the two. > They both seem to end up in the same place for me subjectively. There is a lack of study comparing the states of mind. These fields have kept each other at arms length. That is where the lack of knowledge of comparing them comes from. In TM studies that try to prove a difference my question is "which hypnosis technique", just as a study showing hypnosis was the "same" as meditation would cause a TMer to say "which meditation technique?" The analysis of the language used to reach the inward states shares many common qualities which doesn't reveal the differences IMO. The process of gaining the state is what I was trained in and I am experienced in teaching both experiences to others. I know how to use each to reach an inward state. But once my mind has gone inward, the distinctions go away experientially. I am OK with casual conflation, but only after a few drinks and if she is really hot. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > > > > > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > > > > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > > > > > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. > > > > > > > > As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear > > > > distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or meditative > > > > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the language > > > > used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no foul. > > > > > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > > > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > > > we understand TM too differently to have a > > > meaningful discussion. > > > > You know Judy, I'm the one who was certified to teach meditation by > > MMY, and practice hypnotherapy by John Grinder in NLP. So if anyone > > in this discussion should be pulling the "meaningful discussion" card, > > it should be me. But the fact is that terms like hypnosis and > > meditation are terms referring to internal states with no scientific > > consensus about what they refer to. > > > > > Curtis, with all due respect, you said: "...I don't know enough about > either state to make clear distinctions. I can't even clearly define > hypnosis or meditative state Judy." > > That appears to be a clear contradiction to what you just said above > it. But nevertheless, you seem to be OK with casually conflating the two. > > > > > > > My opinion is not formed, yours > > seems to have already formed. I accept your opinion about meditation > > as based on your personal experience. I don't believe the same is > > true of your opinion of hypnosis, or that we are even using the term > > in the same way. > > > > My discussion was based on me admitting that I don't know what these > > terms specifically refer to. If you are coming from a position of > > "knowledge" concerning these states, I hope you will understand why I > > might view that claim with skepticism. Have you ever had an > > Ericksonian hypnosis session? You might find yourself quite humbled > > (as I have been) concerning what you "know" about meditation states. > > > > I am opened to your description of your long years of meditating, but > > your understanding of hypnosis is only theoretical, right? Your > > "common sense" is shaped by your experience, as is mine. Mine tells > > me that we don't know all the similarities and differences between > > these states of mind. My common sense also tells me that a lack open > > mindedness concerning this exploration is really all I need to know > > about your perspective. Been there, done that. Now I'm not so sure. > > > > In my meditation teacher training MMY said memorize this and didn't > > give too many reasons. In my hypnosis training we analyzed the > > reasons that our words had the effects they had. When it comes to an > > analysis of language used to shift a person's states of mind, I will > > use the resource of the training that gave me reasons over the rote > > memorization. Wouldn't you? > > > > But as I said before all this discussion is optional. I am not an > > expert on anything here. I am just exploring my experiences with the > > light of other people's POVs. I am ruling nothing out at the outset > > of my exploration of ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote I don't even think Lawson was even meditating at the time, but he was really into the "TM preacher" thang. That's kinda where Lawson fell a little short in the credibililty dept. He was Mr. Positive Benefits of TM, Mr. Important to Follow the Progam, but when it came to practicing the tecnique himself, he didn't, for some reason or another. I guess he had other issues going on which he sometimes alluded to. But running 15, 20 posts in a row kinda sucked the air out of the room, IMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > > > wrote: > > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > I wish Lawson were still here. > > > > > > > [Rick wrote:] > > > > > Invite him back. 50 per week, though. > > > > > > > > What I wonder is whether Lawson directed his incessant > > > > posting to another venue or just stopped cold turkey. > > > > I can't say that I have been missing him. > > > > > > I don't know if I dare to ask, but how long have all y'all been > > > talking with each other? Is there much repetition? > > > > "Y'all" who, the participants on the forum in general? > > > > FFL was started in 2001, either shortly before or shortly > > after 9/11. But people join and then drop out all the > > time, so the population isn't constant. (I started > > posting here in May 2005, as did a few others who had > > been regulars on alt.m.t, including Lawson, who dropped > > out this past summer because he felt unappreciated.) > > Uh, not quite the whole story. Yeah, it's the whole story in terms of the question that was asked. But let's look at Barry's imaginative embellishments to the story *he* wants to tell: Lawson was in > the habit (which he claimed was due to a > disorder) of posting impulsively and often, > literally hundreds of posts per week. Not. Average of 104 per week in 2006; and of 83 per week in 2007 (January-March). So, to > a slightly lesser degree, did Judy and (to > an even greater degree) did Shemp. My 2006 average was just under 100 per week; Shemp's was 63 per week. Barry's version of just about anything is never to be trusted. The FFL > community reacted to being "drowned out" by > these compulsive posters and created the 35- > post-per-week maximum. Nobody, of course, was "drowned out." That some people post more obviously does not mean other people have to post less. > Both Shemp and Judy paid lip service to this > maximum, while often going over the limit. By no more than one or two posts, for me, on the grounds that the number 35 was purely arbitrary--the idea being to reduce the *volume* of posts, not to strictly adhere to a particular number. I was observing the spirit of the limit, in other words, and coming damn close to the "law." One part of his story Barry doesn't tell you is that he was fanatically obsessed by how many posts I (and to a lesser extent certain others) made per week, posting elaborate tallies and several times per week writing long, absurd rants about how going over by one or two per week showed gross disrespect for the community, lack of self-control, self-importance, etc., etc., etc. His current post is just an extension of that obsession. > (Until recently for Judy, when Rick finally > put some "teeth" into what happens if you go > over the limit.) Actually he increased the limit, to 50 per week. > Lawson never even *tried* to control or limit > his posting. He just split before the first > week of posting limits went into effect. He > may *claim* that he left because he "felt > unappreciated," but that is far from the > whole story. It was the whole story for Lawson. > > There's some repetition, but not a whole lot, I'd say. > > Certain topics come up over and over again, but the > > substance tends to be relatively new each time. > > Or not, depending on the person viewing the > Department of Redundancy Dept. discussion. :-) > > In other words, some people can argue about the > same thing for years and claim that every iter- > ation of the argument is slightly different. > What an unbiased observer might notice is that > the person claiming subtle differences really > *has* been arguing the same topic endlessly for > over a decade. As I said, certain topics come up over and over again, but the substance tends to be relatively new each time. No "in other words" at all, in other words, just Barry's pretensions to be less-biased-than-thou.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ruth, please read what I wrote again. Whether > hypnosis can be ruled out by common sense depends > on how one understands TM. In my understanding, > it's a matter of common sense. If it isn't in > Curtis's understanding, then he and I have vastly > different understandings. That's all I was saying. > OK, it depends on how you understand TM. But that isn't a matter of common sense. It is just your understanding of how TM works. Which is fine, but not necessarily a matter of common sense.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Brilliant. - Original Message From: Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 7:37:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:41 PM, authfriend wrote: We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its face. What don't you find suggestive about "sit easily"? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Peter wrote: By the way, being trained to teach TM and hypnosis and having experienced both here's my take: TM and hypnosis are initially identical Exactly. Sad thing is, some people get stuck on that initial phase and never move beyond. When they go to a form of deep meditation, they're often shocked at how 'the bottom drops out' of their 'transcendent'. Usually after that they realize they were simply languishing in a light, blissy trance state, sometimes for decades.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By the way, being trained to teach TM and hypnosis and > having experienced both here's my take: TM and > hypnosis are initially identical. The difference with > TM though is the continued quieting of the mind's > activity and if that particular mind is capable of it, > the absolute quieting of the mind and the shift of > attention to the transcendent or, more correctly, pure > consciousness. You can't and don't transcend with > hypnosis because that is not its intent. TM and > hypnosis are just two different "things". I'll go along with this, but I'd add that suggestion can play a role only initially because you can't suggest something that (a) cannot be adequately described in words and (b) is a completely novel experience for the subject (at least in most cases). This is the "common sense" aspect I was referring to earlier.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is > hypnosis, > > > > like I said, forget it, whether you're > pitching > > > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is > are > > > > just too different to have a meaningful > discussion. > > > > > > As I said, I don't know enough about either > state to make clear > > > distinctions. I can't even clearly define > hypnosis or meditative > > > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective > on the language > > > used. But if the discussion isn't working for > you, no harm no foul. > > > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > > we understand TM too differently to have a > > meaningful discussion. > > > It boggles my mind that the distinction between > Transcendental > Meditation and hypnosis doesn't seem to be at least > intellectually > clear to so many who have been immersed for so long > in the TM > description. But to me, it's another symptom of how > the pathetic state > of the 'dignity' and representational 'example' of > the TMO has > resulted in its losing its credibility and respect. It is also an example of the intellectual dishonesty of the TMO. The TMO is not interested or even remotely motivated to seek "Truth." It is interested in perpetuating a body of techniques that claim to allow you to experience the "Truth" even though most people don't have such results from these techniques. The TMO is a cult. It has decided, a priori, that it is right and anyone else is wrong. By the way, being trained to teach TM and hypnosis and having experienced both here's my take: TM and hypnosis are initially identical. The difference with TM though is the continued quieting of the mind's activity and if that particular mind is capable of it, the absolute quieting of the mind and the shift of attention to the transcendent or, more correctly, pure consciousness. You can't and don't transcend with hypnosis because that is not its intent. TM and hypnosis are just two different "things". > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:41 PM, authfriend wrote: We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its face. What don't you find suggestive about "sit easily"?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ]On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! When I got my mantras from Amma, there really was no formal instructions per se--as if I'd know how to use it. Yes. The venue in which she imparts mantras (Devi Bhava – an all- night event with loud bhajans playing) is not conducive to the imparting of formal instructions for mantra use. There is someone giving instructions to small groups of people who have just gotten mantras from Amma, but I doubt that many people remember or follow those instructions. Interesting, that jogged my memory. I remember I was taken aside and given some brief instructions which included a visualization on the body of Mother Divine/The Universe, prostrating to my asana, etc. By "taken aside", I mean about 4 feet away from Amma, who was still in her ecstatic bhava-samadhi. Actually when I went to Devi Bhava there were only about 50 of us. Very intimate setting. I wouldn't call them detailed instructions on meditation but quite beautiful. I had no need for questions and I guess that's why I glossed over the brief instructions because I was happy with what the priest said. I still have them written down and the mantras on a piece of paper.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:11 PM, Rick Archer wrote: (I started posting here in May 2005, as did a few others who had been regulars on alt.m.t, including Lawson, who dropped out this past summer because he felt unappreciated.) Translation: people didn’t appreciate the fact that he ignored repeated requests to try to favor a bit of substance over the relentless posting of short, unsubstantial comments at the end of long, unsnipped posts. He was a large part of the reason we agreed on posting limits. He couldn’t tolerate being limited, so he left. Let's not forget, the guy was like a TM evangelist with OCD. No, let me re-phrase that: he was a TM evangelist with OCD.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > > > > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > > > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > > > > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. > > > > > > As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear > > > distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or meditative > > > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the language > > > used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no foul. > > > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > > we understand TM too differently to have a > > meaningful discussion. > > You know Judy, I'm the one who was certified to teach meditation by > MMY, and practice hypnotherapy by John Grinder in NLP. So if anyone > in this discussion should be pulling the "meaningful discussion" card, > it should be me. But the fact is that terms like hypnosis and > meditation are terms referring to internal states with no scientific > consensus about what they refer to. Curtis, with all due respect, you said: "...I don't know enough about either state to make clear distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or meditative state Judy." That appears to be a clear contradiction to what you just said above it. But nevertheless, you seem to be OK with casually conflating the two. My opinion is not formed, yours > seems to have already formed. I accept your opinion about meditation > as based on your personal experience. I don't believe the same is > true of your opinion of hypnosis, or that we are even using the term > in the same way. > > My discussion was based on me admitting that I don't know what these > terms specifically refer to. If you are coming from a position of > "knowledge" concerning these states, I hope you will understand why I > might view that claim with skepticism. Have you ever had an > Ericksonian hypnosis session? You might find yourself quite humbled > (as I have been) concerning what you "know" about meditation states. > > I am opened to your description of your long years of meditating, but > your understanding of hypnosis is only theoretical, right? Your > "common sense" is shaped by your experience, as is mine. Mine tells > me that we don't know all the similarities and differences between > these states of mind. My common sense also tells me that a lack open > mindedness concerning this exploration is really all I need to know > about your perspective. Been there, done that. Now I'm not so sure. > > In my meditation teacher training MMY said memorize this and didn't > give too many reasons. In my hypnosis training we analyzed the > reasons that our words had the effects they had. When it comes to an > analysis of language used to shift a person's states of mind, I will > use the resource of the training that gave me reasons over the rote > memorization. Wouldn't you? > > But as I said before all this discussion is optional. I am not an > expert on anything here. I am just exploring my experiences with the > light of other people's POVs. I am ruling nothing out at the outset > of my exploration of ideas. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > > > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > > > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. > > > > As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear > > distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or meditative > > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the language > > used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no foul. > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > we understand TM too differently to have a > meaningful discussion. It boggles my mind that the distinction between Transcendental Meditation and hypnosis doesn't seem to be at least intellectually clear to so many who have been immersed for so long in the TM description. But to me, it's another symptom of how the pathetic state of the 'dignity' and representational 'example' of the TMO has resulted in its losing its credibility and respect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > > > On Behalf Of authfriend > > > > > > > Not everyone thought his comments were "unsubstantial." > > > > I found many of them extremely meaty. He has an almost > > > > Zenlike knack for succinctness. That's what enabled him > > > > to make so many posts. > > > > > > I agree that many of them were substantial, but most were > > > unnecessary "me too" posts > > > > I can't recall Lawson's *ever* making a "me too" post. > > I think that was one of the comments you made that > > really bugged him, because it was just off the wall. > > > > , and despite repeated requests > > > from many people to cut back, he couldn't restrain himself. > > > > He felt that his posts were unappreciated, as I > > said to start with. Obviously you don't tell > > somebody to cut back posts you appreciate. > > No? Even your *supporters* were asking you > to post less, Judy. And you categorically > refused, as did Lawson, as did Shemp. The > posting limits were the result. Just as a followup, I should point out that yesterday, in less than 24 hours, you made 33 posts. Those posts were mainly you either rehashing old arguments that you've been argu- ing about for 14 years on this forum or another, and a few token posts dissing people you don't like and trying to "lessen" them in the eyes of other posters. If the posting limits had *not* been put into effect, and you continued to post at the same rate, you'd easily rack up over 200 posts for the week. How many of the people who "appreciate" your posts here do you think still would if you were allowed to post as much as you clearly want to? I think that what many of us "appreciate" most about your posts is that now, under the new posting limits, you've often compulsively used them all up by Monday morning, and we can spend the rest of the week free of them. The same would be true of Lawson if he were still around, but he'd "foul out on posts" by mid-day Saturday. And Shemp will probably come off his two-week hiatus full of bile and go over the limit within a few days, and then we'll be free of his posts for at least a month. I'm a big *fan* of the posting limits. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > On Behalf Of authfriend > > > > > Not everyone thought his comments were "unsubstantial." > > > I found many of them extremely meaty. He has an almost > > > Zenlike knack for succinctness. That's what enabled him > > > to make so many posts. > > > > I agree that many of them were substantial, but most were > > unnecessary "me too" posts > > I can't recall Lawson's *ever* making a "me too" post. > I think that was one of the comments you made that > really bugged him, because it was just off the wall. > > , and despite repeated requests > > from many people to cut back, he couldn't restrain himself. > > He felt that his posts were unappreciated, as I > said to start with. Obviously you don't tell > somebody to cut back posts you appreciate. No? Even your *supporters* were asking you to post less, Judy. And you categorically refused, as did Lawson, as did Shemp. The posting limits were the result.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same > > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" > > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its > > face. > > I agree with this. I'm not sure I do. The "intro lectures" in TM provide a great *deal* of suggestion, all *before* the person sits down to meditate. Since the teach- ing is canned, and no one can ever experience TM *without* the "preprogramming" of the intro lectures, for me the question of whether suggestion is part of the process is an open one. > Meditation invokes a state of mind that is not > dependent on expectation. But it is certainly *open* to expectation. > My recent experiences in meditation seem > like evidence for this as well. Again, what would the experience of meditation be like if we had *no* foreknowledge of what it was "supposed" to be like, from *anyone*? It's an open question, because as far as I can tell it's never happened in the history of meditation. The student *always* has some expectation of the practice; otherwise he wouldn't be starting it. The unanswered question is whether this expectation affects the experiences of the meditation itself. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > > > > > > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > > > > > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > > > > > > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear > > > > > distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or > > meditative > > > > > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the > > language > > > > > used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no > > foul. > > > > > > > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > > > > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > > > > we understand TM too differently to have a > > > > meaningful discussion. > > > > > > You know Judy, I'm the one who was certified to teach meditation > > > by MMY, and practice hypnotherapy by John Grinder in NLP. So if > > > anyone in this discussion should be pulling the "meaningful > > > discussion" card, it should be me. But the fact is that terms > > > like hypnosis and meditation are terms referring to internal > > > states with no scientific consensus about what they refer to. > > > My opinion is not formed, yours seems to have already formed. I > > > accept your opinion about meditation as based on your personal > > > experience. I don't believe the same is true of your opinion of > > > hypnosis, or that we are even using the term in the same way. > > > > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same > > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" > > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its > > face. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2008, at 9:42 PM, tertonzeno wrote: > > > ---It's the power in the mantra that's essential; and not present to > > the same degree in mantras of other traditions I've been intiated > > into. > > I've had the opposite experience. So, for the record, have I. I'm with Curtis on this one -- the mantras as "magic words" with inherent "power" is on the same level as "magic beans" with the ability to grow into giant beanstalks with pots of gold at the top guarded by giants.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > > wrote: > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > I wish Lawson were still here. > > > > > [Rick wrote:] > > > > Invite him back. 50 per week, though. > > > > > > What I wonder is whether Lawson directed his incessant posting to > > > another venue or just stopped cold turkey. I can't say that I > > > have been missing him. > > > > I don't know if I dare to ask, but how long have all y'all been > > talking with each other? Is there much repetition? > > "Y'all" who, the participants on the forum in general? > > FFL was started in 2001, either shortly before or shortly > after 9/11. But people join and then drop out all the > time, so the population isn't constant. (I started > posting here in May 2005, as did a few others who had > been regulars on alt.m.t, including Lawson, who dropped > out this past summer because he felt unappreciated.) Uh, not quite the whole story. Lawson was in the habit (which he claimed was due to a disorder) of posting impulsively and often, literally hundreds of posts per week. So, to a slightly lesser degree, did Judy and (to an even greater degree) did Shemp. The FFL community reacted to being "drowned out" by these compulsive posters and created the 35- post-per-week maximum. Both Shemp and Judy paid lip service to this maximum, while often going over the limit. (Until recently for Judy, when Rick finally put some "teeth" into what happens if you go over the limit.) Lawson never even *tried* to control or limit his posting. He just split before the first week of posting limits went into effect. He may *claim* that he left because he "felt unappreciated," but that is far from the whole story. > There's some repetition, but not a whole lot, I'd say. > Certain topics come up over and over again, but the > substance tends to be relatively new each time. Or not, depending on the person viewing the Department of Redundancy Dept. discussion. :-) In other words, some people can argue about the same thing for years and claim that every iter- ation of the argument is slightly different. What an unbiased observer might notice is that the person claiming subtle differences really *has* been arguing the same topic endlessly for over a decade. Again, just presenting a slightly different point of view on the subject, to present more of the "whole story."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > It already *is* in the record. > > > > > > What's with the lack of reading comprehension on > > > this forum lately?? > > > > Alright, so you don't have to insult my intelligence! > > Reading comprehensio and intelligence are two different > things. And it's not just you, by a long shot. Gee, could it possibly be "everyone but you" who lacks "reading comprehensio?" :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Behalf Of authfriend > > > Not everyone thought his comments were "unsubstantial." > > I found many of them extremely meaty. He has an almost > > Zenlike knack for succinctness. That's what enabled him > > to make so many posts. > > I agree that many of them were substantial, but most were > unnecessary "me too" posts I can't recall Lawson's *ever* making a "me too" post. I think that was one of the comments you made that really bugged him, because it was just off the wall. , and despite repeated requests > from many people to cut back, he couldn't restrain himself. He felt that his posts were unappreciated, as I said to start with. Obviously you don't tell somebody to cut back posts you appreciate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
> We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its > face. > I agree with this. Meditation invokes a state of mind that is not dependent on expectation. My recent experiences in meditation seem like evidence for this as well. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > > > > > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > > > > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > > > > > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. > > > > > > > > As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear > > > > distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or > meditative > > > > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the > language > > > > used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no > foul. > > > > > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > > > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > > > we understand TM too differently to have a > > > meaningful discussion. > > > > You know Judy, I'm the one who was certified to teach meditation > > by MMY, and practice hypnotherapy by John Grinder in NLP. So if > > anyone in this discussion should be pulling the "meaningful > > discussion" card, it should be me. But the fact is that terms > > like hypnosis and meditation are terms referring to internal > > states with no scientific consensus about what they refer to. > > My opinion is not formed, yours seems to have already formed. I > > accept your opinion about meditation as based on your personal > > experience. I don't believe the same is true of your opinion of > > hypnosis, or that we are even using the term in the same way. > > We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same > way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" > that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its > face. >
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:36 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! Not everyone thought his comments were "unsubstantial." I found many of them extremely meaty. He has an almost Zenlike knack for succinctness. That's what enabled him to make so many posts. I agree that many of them were substantial, but most were unnecessary “me too” posts, and despite repeated requests from many people to cut back, he couldn’t restrain himself. And he had gotten much better at snipping. As I recall he remembered to snip sometimes, after having been reminded many times, but he kept reverting back to old habits. He was a > large part of the reason we agreed on posting limits. He > couldn't tolerate being limited, so he left. He left before the posting limit was imposed, Rick. He was bummed because so many people were dissing his posts (including you). I wasn’t dissing his substantive posts, of which there were some. I and most others were objecting to his high volume of unnecessary posts, which diluted the quality of FFL. Now that we have the 50 post rule, he’d be constrained, and might choose to be more selective about using his posts. BTW, Shemp will have posting rights restored Tuesday, in case anyone is missing him. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1233 - Release Date: 1/19/2008 6:37 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > > > > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > > > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > > > > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. > > > > > > As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear > > > distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or meditative > > > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the language > > > used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no foul. > > > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > > we understand TM too differently to have a > > meaningful discussion. > > You know Judy, I'm the one who was certified to teach meditation > by MMY, and practice hypnotherapy by John Grinder in NLP. So if > anyone in this discussion should be pulling the "meaningful > discussion" card, it should be me. But the fact is that terms > like hypnosis and meditation are terms referring to internal > states with no scientific consensus about what they refer to. > My opinion is not formed, yours seems to have already formed. I > accept your opinion about meditation as based on your personal > experience. I don't believe the same is true of your opinion of > hypnosis, or that we are even using the term in the same way. We may not be using the term "hypnosis" the same way, that's true. It's the element of "suggestion" that I don't find consistent with TM, just on its face.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of authfriend > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:02 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! > > > > (I started > posting here in May 2005, as did a few others who had > been regulars on alt.m.t, including Lawson, who dropped > out this past summer because he felt unappreciated.) > > Translation: people didn't appreciate the fact that he ignored > repeated requests to try to favor a bit of substance over the > relentless posting of short, unsubstantial comments at the end > of long, unsnipped posts. Not everyone thought his comments were "unsubstantial." I found many of them extremely meaty. He has an almost Zenlike knack for succinctness. That's what enabled him to make so many posts. And he had gotten much better at snipping. He was a > large part of the reason we agreed on posting limits. He > couldn't tolerate being limited, so he left. He left before the posting limit was imposed, Rick. He was bummed because so many people were dissing his posts (including you).
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ruthsimplicity Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:45 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! Thanks. I saw from post record at the bottom of the site that it has been around for a few years, I wondered if the same people have been talking to each other all that time. A few of us have been around since the beginning. If you browse through the first few pages starting with HYPERLINK "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/messages/1?l=1"http://groups.ya hoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/messages/1?l=1 you’ll see who. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1233 - Release Date: 1/19/2008 6:37 PM
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! When I got my mantras from Amma, there really was no formal instructions per se--as if I'd know how to use it. Yes. The venue in which she imparts mantras (Devi Bhava – an all-night event with loud bhajans playing) is not conducive to the imparting of formal instructions for mantra use. There is someone giving instructions to small groups of people who have just gotten mantras from Amma, but I doubt that many people remember or follow those instructions. Consequently, many people don’t use their mantras or just use them for a sort of informal japa. Few, if any, spontaneously discover how to use them for TM-style sitting meditation. In my limited experience, those who do sit to meditate don’t have a clear understanding of effortlessness or how to deal with thoughts. Sitting with a couple of those people and taking them through the checking steps and suggesting that they meditate effortlessly has produced profound results. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1233 - Release Date: 1/19/2008 6:37 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > > we understand TM too differently to have a > > meaningful discussion. > > I am not part of this discussion, but how could "common sense" rule > out hypnosis? Some people "just know" things, others do not. That > does not necessarily imply a lack of common sense. It has the ring > of being patronizing to me. Ruth, please read what I wrote again. Whether hypnosis can be ruled out by common sense depends on how one understands TM. In my understanding, it's a matter of common sense. If it isn't in Curtis's understanding, then he and I have vastly different understandings. That's all I was saying.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:02 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! (I started posting here in May 2005, as did a few others who had been regulars on alt.m.t, including Lawson, who dropped out this past summer because he felt unappreciated.) Translation: people didn’t appreciate the fact that he ignored repeated requests to try to favor a bit of substance over the relentless posting of short, unsubstantial comments at the end of long, unsnipped posts. He was a large part of the reason we agreed on posting limits. He couldn’t tolerate being limited, so he left. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1233 - Release Date: 1/19/2008 6:37 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 19, 2008, at 7:13 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > > What I wonder is whether Lawson directed his incessant posting > > to another venue or just stopped cold turkey. I can't say > > that I have been missing him. > > > He haunted some other lists briefly--posting TM "research" on > Buddhist lists--till others quickly caught onto his game and > buried him. He quickly disappeared then. This is another of Vaj's bald-faced, vicious lies. Lawson had been posting fairly regularly to various of these Buddhist lists since *mid-2006*, and he doesn't appear to have left until the beginning of *June 2007*. Vaj made up "quickly caught onto his game" and "quickly disappeared" out of whole cloth. A lot of the exchanges on a given Buddhist group are crossposted to other Buddhist groups. It's not clear to me that Lawson was posting in more than one group, but the posts typically went to several different ones. Lawson had extended discussions with many different people, most of them *not* about research. In many of the exchanges I looked at, he was attempting to clear up the misconceptions the Buddhist folk had about TM. > One interesting thing came up on those conversations: the topic > of TMers having negative side-effects, etc. This shocked the > members of the list, because none of them had known anyone in > their traditions to ever have such issues. I didn't see anything remotely corresponding to "This shocked the members of the list." If Vaj didn't make this up as well, perhaps he'd like to cite the group and the dates of that discussion. (Fat chance.) > I don't even think Lawson was even meditating at the time Vaj is talking out of his rear end. Much of Lawson's participation in the Buddhist groups overlapped his participation here, and he explained clearly here--a number of times, in fact-- that he did do his program but not always regularly. , but he was > really into the "TM preacher" thang.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > > > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > > > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. > > > > As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear > > distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or meditative > > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the language > > used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no foul. > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > we understand TM too differently to have a > meaningful discussion. You know Judy, I'm the one who was certified to teach meditation by MMY, and practice hypnotherapy by John Grinder in NLP. So if anyone in this discussion should be pulling the "meaningful discussion" card, it should be me. But the fact is that terms like hypnosis and meditation are terms referring to internal states with no scientific consensus about what they refer to. My opinion is not formed, yours seems to have already formed. I accept your opinion about meditation as based on your personal experience. I don't believe the same is true of your opinion of hypnosis, or that we are even using the term in the same way. My discussion was based on me admitting that I don't know what these terms specifically refer to. If you are coming from a position of "knowledge" concerning these states, I hope you will understand why I might view that claim with skepticism. Have you ever had an Ericksonian hypnosis session? You might find yourself quite humbled (as I have been) concerning what you "know" about meditation states. I am opened to your description of your long years of meditating, but your understanding of hypnosis is only theoretical, right? Your "common sense" is shaped by your experience, as is mine. Mine tells me that we don't know all the similarities and differences between these states of mind. My common sense also tells me that a lack open mindedness concerning this exploration is really all I need to know about your perspective. Been there, done that. Now I'm not so sure. In my meditation teacher training MMY said memorize this and didn't give too many reasons. In my hypnosis training we analyzed the reasons that our words had the effects they had. When it comes to an analysis of language used to shift a person's states of mind, I will use the resource of the training that gave me reasons over the rote memorization. Wouldn't you? But as I said before all this discussion is optional. I am not an expert on anything here. I am just exploring my experiences with the light of other people's POVs. I am ruling nothing out at the outset of my exploration of ideas. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Sir and Sire both have the Latin root of senex or old. But it's a great guess. - Original Message From: Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:05:36 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! Richard J. Williams wrote: >>> All the Saraswati Swamis are tantrics who >>> worship the Tripuransundari and belong to >>> the Sri Vidya sect. >>> >>> > Bhairitu wrote: > >> Fortunately most people here including Billy >> don't take you as a reliable source. >> >> > Unfortunately, you didn't post any evidence to > counter my comments. In fact, all the Sarasawati > Swamis worship Tripuransundari and belong to the > Sri Vidya sect. There's only one Sri Yantra, > Bharat2, associated with the Sri Vidya sect, and > that is the Sri Chakra. Do you know what Sri means > in Sanskrit? And did you know that Tripuransundari > is the object of their devotions? There is no > difference between Sri Herself and Saraswati. > And like I said, the TM mantra is used in meditation > on Sri Vidya - Saraswati. Some tantric you turned > out to be! Of course I can read Devanagri. Can you? My point was that many yantras have bij mantras on them so you can't claim that Sri Yantra is the source. Sri has a number of meanings. It is like a salutation i.e. "mister" it can also be a name or Lakshmi and Saraswati. One wonders if the salutation "sir' has its root with the word? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Richard J. Williams wrote: >>> All the Saraswati Swamis are tantrics who >>> worship the Tripuransundari and belong to >>> the Sri Vidya sect. >>> >>> > Bhairitu wrote: > >> Fortunately most people here including Billy >> don't take you as a reliable source. >> >> > Unfortunately, you didn't post any evidence to > counter my comments. In fact, all the Sarasawati > Swamis worship Tripuransundari and belong to the > Sri Vidya sect. There's only one Sri Yantra, > Bharat2, associated with the Sri Vidya sect, and > that is the Sri Chakra. Do you know what Sri means > in Sanskrit? And did you know that Tripuransundari > is the object of their devotions? There is no > difference between Sri Herself and Saraswati. > And like I said, the TM mantra is used in meditation > on Sri Vidya - Saraswati. Some tantric you turned > out to be! Of course I can read Devanagri. Can you? My point was that many yantras have bij mantras on them so you can't claim that Sri Yantra is the source. Sri has a number of meanings. It is like a salutation i.e. "mister" it can also be a name or Lakshmi and Saraswati. One wonders if the salutation "sir' has its root with the word?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
I'm almost as new as you are, Ruth. - Original Message From: ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:44:33 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > FFL was started in 2001, either shortly before or shortly > after 9/11. But people join and then drop out all the > time, so the population isn't constant. (I started > posting here in May 2005, as did a few others who had > been regulars on alt.m.t, including Lawson, who dropped > out this past summer because he felt unappreciated. ) > > There's some repetition, but not a whole lot, I'd say. > Certain topics come up over and over again, but the > substance tends to be relatively new each time. > Thanks. I saw from post record at the bottom of the site that it has been around for a few years, I wondered if the same people have been talking to each other all that time. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
On Jan 19, 2008, at 9:42 PM, tertonzeno wrote: ---It's the power in the mantra that's essential; and not present to the same degree in mantras of other traditions I've been intiated into. I've had the opposite experience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule > out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, > we understand TM too differently to have a > meaningful discussion. > I am not part of this discussion, but how could "common sense" rule out hypnosis? Some people "just know" things, others do not. That does not necessarily imply a lack of common sense. It has the ring of being patronizing to me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
curtisdeltablues wrote: >> Yeah, but what does it mean to "sit easily"? >> > > In hypnotic language theory it is a non specific instruction. It's > meaning will be some version of "chill" that the person decides for > themself. It is better than "relax' which can cause an oppositional > reflex. My guru recently took a hypnotherapy training course. It was interesting to note how similar the instructions are to those for meditation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > FFL was started in 2001, either shortly before or shortly > after 9/11. But people join and then drop out all the > time, so the population isn't constant. (I started > posting here in May 2005, as did a few others who had > been regulars on alt.m.t, including Lawson, who dropped > out this past summer because he felt unappreciated.) > > There's some repetition, but not a whole lot, I'd say. > Certain topics come up over and over again, but the > substance tends to be relatively new each time. > Thanks. I saw from post record at the bottom of the site that it has been around for a few years, I wondered if the same people have been talking to each other all that time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
---It's the power in the mantra that's essential; and not present to the same degree in mantras of other traditions I've been intiated into. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Vaj > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 4:52 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! > > > > I find > it hard to believe that plenty of Japa practicers didn't chill out > with a similar technique to TM. > > > > > > And of course they have. It's nothing new at all--except "canned" parts like > "checking" and mantra selection. > > > > Don't know about mantra selection, but IMO checking and the 7- steps were a > stroke of genius. > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008 > 7:32 PM >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
On Jan 19, 2008, at 7:13 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > I wish Lawson were still here. > > Invite him back. 50 per week, though. What I wonder is whether Lawson directed his incessant posting to another venue or just stopped cold turkey. I can't say that I have been missing him. He haunted some other lists briefly--posting TM "research" on Buddhist lists--till others quickly caught onto his game and buried him. He quickly disappeared then. One interesting thing came up on those conversations: the topic of TMers having negative side-effects, etc. This shocked the members of the list, because none of them had known anyone in their traditions to ever have such issues. I don't even think Lawson was even meditating at the time, but he was really into the "TM preacher" thang.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
On Jan 19, 2008, at 6:18 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ]On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 5:02 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Don’t know about mantra selection, but IMO checking and the 7-steps were a stroke of genius. It was innovative. The problem is whenever you "can" something like this, there's bound to be people who fall thru the cracks. An acharya or a trained guru will have many options for when things go wrong, as in when the wrong mantra leads to problems and the mantra needs changed, etc. Agreed. But just for the record, I’ve “checked” the meditation of a couple of people at Amma events who had been trying to meditate using a mantra she gave them, but resisting thoughts, etc., and it made a huge difference in the quality of their experience. When I got my mantras from Amma, there really was no formal instructions per se--as if I'd know how to use it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. > > As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear > distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or meditative > state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the language > used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no foul. Let me put it this way: If you can't *rule out* hypnosis just as a matter of common sense, we understand TM too differently to have a meaningful discussion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been doing some meditation lately. I am experimenting with not > using the mantra. In past discussions you thought that perhaps it was > going on unconsciously, and I really have no answer for that. It > could be. But specifically I've just been sitting, noticing my breath > and when my mind goes off in a thought,and I remember, I come back to > noticing my breath. So sitting easily is key. When I use a mantra > that seems similar, although after 18 years my old advanced long ass > mantras seem like overkill, so I tend to end up with a shorter version. > There are a couple great meditation teachers who promote experimentation. You may find helpful. Swami Durgananda - Sally Kempton has a book called "The Heart of Meditation". It suggests different techniques to try. She travels around a lot, I really liked going to one of her meditation workshops. Her teacher Muktananda (sp) knew MMY. He promoted experimentation as well. His autobiography is called "Play of Consciousness" and he emphasizes the "play" part. Adyashanti has some CDs out that can be found used cheap. He has some guided meditations. His whole thing is about loosing the mantra or the breath altogether. For him its all about centering attention. It is even more effortless than TM. I always enjoy coming back to his guided meditations. >From what I can gather TM is one size fits all. After a while it doesn't hurt to come to the practice with a bit of discernment and see whats at work there. I know that my asana practice done in tandem with TM has made a huge difference to how attentive I am during TM. Its all about setting up clear, energetic foundation before sitting down to practice. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > wrote: > > [I wrote:] > > > I wish Lawson were still here. > > > [Rick wrote:] > > > Invite him back. 50 per week, though. > > > > What I wonder is whether Lawson directed his incessant posting to > > another venue or just stopped cold turkey. I can't say that I > > have been missing him. > > I don't know if I dare to ask, but how long have all y'all been > talking with each other? Is there much repetition? "Y'all" who, the participants on the forum in general? FFL was started in 2001, either shortly before or shortly after 9/11. But people join and then drop out all the time, so the population isn't constant. (I started posting here in May 2005, as did a few others who had been regulars on alt.m.t, including Lawson, who dropped out this past summer because he felt unappreciated.) There's some repetition, but not a whole lot, I'd say. Certain topics come up over and over again, but the substance tends to be relatively new each time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
> Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. As I said, I don't know enough about either state to make clear distinctions. I can't even clearly define hypnosis or meditative state Judy. I was speaking about my perspective on the language used. But if the discussion isn't working for you, no harm no foul. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, but what does it mean to "sit easily"? > > > > > > > > In hypnotic language theory > > > > > > Look, if you're going to start claiming TM is > > > hypnosis, forget it. > > > > I was using a description of the language used. That is how I > > understand it's "meaning". It is a specific language form that is > > shared by all instructions meant to shift a person's attention. It > is > > found in meditation instructions and also hypnosis. > > > > If you feel confident that you are clear on the differences in the > > end states fine. I am not pitching my POV, I was answering your > > question. > > Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, > like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching > it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are > just too different to have a meaningful discussion. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, but what does it mean to "sit easily"? > > > > > > In hypnotic language theory > > > > Look, if you're going to start claiming TM is > > hypnosis, forget it. > > I was using a description of the language used. That is how I > understand it's "meaning". It is a specific language form that is > shared by all instructions meant to shift a person's attention. It is > found in meditation instructions and also hypnosis. > > If you feel confident that you are clear on the differences in the > end states fine. I am not pitching my POV, I was answering your > question. Yeah, well, if it's your POV that TM is hypnosis, like I said, forget it, whether you're pitching it or not. Our understandings of what TM is are just too different to have a meaningful discussion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I wish Lawson were still here. > > > > Invite him back. 50 per week, though. > > What I wonder is whether Lawson directed his incessant posting to > another venue or just stopped cold turkey. I can't say that I have > been missing him. > I don't know if I dare to ask, but how long have all y'all been talking with each other? Is there much repetition?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
> I wish Lawson were still here. > > Invite him back. 50 per week, though. What I wonder is whether Lawson directed his incessant posting to another venue or just stopped cold turkey. I can't say that I have been missing him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, but what does it mean to "sit easily"? > > > > In hypnotic language theory > > Look, if you're going to start claiming TM is > hypnosis, forget it. I was using a description of the language used. That is how I understand it's "meaning". It is a specific language form that is shared by all instructions meant to shift a person's attention. It is found in meditation instructions and also hypnosis. If you feel confident that you are clear on the differences in the end states fine. I am not pitching my POV, I was answering your question. I don't believe that scientists know enough about either states to be sure of anything at this point, so I am not saying meditation IS hypnosis. But when it's instructions share the language form I notice it. We do know something about the effect of non specific instructions on people. They fill in their own meaning. > > > it is a non specific instruction. It's > > meaning will be some version of "chill" that the person decides for > > themself. It is better than "relax' which can cause an oppositional > > reflex. > > > > What does it mean for you? > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Actually that isn't the first instruction. The > > > > *very* first instruction is, "Sit easily." > > > > > > > > What does that mean? > > > > > > > > I would welcome a discussion about TM and other meditations. I > am > > > > rethinking this area. I think you might have found a lot of > TTC a > > > > pain in the ass Judy. but I think you would have really enjoyed > > > > teaching. It was a lot of fun. MMY really did create a mass > > > > produced service that did deliver. Mostly it was the > memorization > > > > which, as you know as a checker was relentless. In fact your > > > > experience as a checker is a perfect background for making > > > > distinctions that I am interested in. > > > > > > For the record, I was never certified as a checker. > > > I did take checker training and was working toward the > > > exam, but something intervened, I can't remember what, > > > and I never took it up again. > > > > > > > I've been doing some meditation lately. I am experimenting with > > > > not using the mantra. In past discussions you thought that > > > > perhaps it was going on unconsciously, and I really have no > answer > > > > for that. It could be. But specifically I've just been > sitting, > > > > noticing my breath and when my mind goes off in a thought,and I > > > > remember, I come back to noticing my breath. So sitting easily > is > > > > key. > > > > > > Yeah, but what does it mean to "sit easily"? I had > > > a comment I wanted to make about TM's uniqueness, and > > > that was kind of my starting point. > > > > > > (Not to dismiss the rest of what you said; I just don't > > > have anything to add to it right now.) > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Yeah, but what does it mean to "sit easily"? > > In hypnotic language theory it is a non specific instruction. It's > meaning will be some version of "chill" that the person decides for > themself. It is better than "relax' which can cause an oppositional > reflex. Great definition. After all, the teacher doesn't say what sit easily means. It is nice and undemanding of suggesting someone relax. I agree that telling someone directly to relax often has the opposite effect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Yeah, but what does it mean to "sit easily"? > > In hypnotic language theory Look, if you're going to start claiming TM is hypnosis, forget it. it is a non specific instruction. It's > meaning will be some version of "chill" that the person decides for > themself. It is better than "relax' which can cause an oppositional > reflex. > > What does it mean for you? > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > Actually that isn't the first instruction. The > > > *very* first instruction is, "Sit easily." > > > > > > What does that mean? > > > > > > I would welcome a discussion about TM and other meditations. I am > > > rethinking this area. I think you might have found a lot of TTC a > > > pain in the ass Judy. but I think you would have really enjoyed > > > teaching. It was a lot of fun. MMY really did create a mass > > > produced service that did deliver. Mostly it was the memorization > > > which, as you know as a checker was relentless. In fact your > > > experience as a checker is a perfect background for making > > > distinctions that I am interested in. > > > > For the record, I was never certified as a checker. > > I did take checker training and was working toward the > > exam, but something intervened, I can't remember what, > > and I never took it up again. > > > > > I've been doing some meditation lately. I am experimenting with > > > not using the mantra. In past discussions you thought that > > > perhaps it was going on unconsciously, and I really have no answer > > > for that. It could be. But specifically I've just been sitting, > > > noticing my breath and when my mind goes off in a thought,and I > > > remember, I come back to noticing my breath. So sitting easily is > > > key. > > > > Yeah, but what does it mean to "sit easily"? I had > > a comment I wanted to make about TM's uniqueness, and > > that was kind of my starting point. > > > > (Not to dismiss the rest of what you said; I just don't > > have anything to add to it right now.) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:17 PM, authfriend wrote: > > >> We've been down this road before, Judy, and your point is > >> ludicrous. > > > > Oh, it most certainly is not ludicrous. I'm sick > > and tired of being pegged as a True Believer because > > I quote something MMY has said in a discussion > > *about* what he has said. I've seen it happen to > > others as well. > > I haven't pegged you as anything I didn't say you had. I gave you a recent example of someone who did. except someone who on occasion > parses endlessly to the point of absurdity. I think it mostly > boils down to not being able to accept at face-value what someone > does say, having to look for hidden meanings, etc. Maybe it's the > editor coming out in you, or possibly the flake coming out in me. Don't see what the relevance of this is. In any > case, I find trying to separate what someone has said from > "what someone has said is true" to be a distinction without > a difference. Oh. So if I quoted Bush claiming there were WMD in Iraq, you'd assume I was saying that was true? Give me a break.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
> Yeah, but what does it mean to "sit easily"? In hypnotic language theory it is a non specific instruction. It's meaning will be some version of "chill" that the person decides for themself. It is better than "relax' which can cause an oppositional reflex. What does it mean for you? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > Actually that isn't the first instruction. The > > *very* first instruction is, "Sit easily." > > > > What does that mean? > > > > I would welcome a discussion about TM and other meditations. I am > > rethinking this area. I think you might have found a lot of TTC a > > pain in the ass Judy. but I think you would have really enjoyed > > teaching. It was a lot of fun. MMY really did create a mass > > produced service that did deliver. Mostly it was the memorization > > which, as you know as a checker was relentless. In fact your > > experience as a checker is a perfect background for making > > distinctions that I am interested in. > > For the record, I was never certified as a checker. > I did take checker training and was working toward the > exam, but something intervened, I can't remember what, > and I never took it up again. > > > I've been doing some meditation lately. I am experimenting with > > not using the mantra. In past discussions you thought that > > perhaps it was going on unconsciously, and I really have no answer > > for that. It could be. But specifically I've just been sitting, > > noticing my breath and when my mind goes off in a thought,and I > > remember, I come back to noticing my breath. So sitting easily is > > key. > > Yeah, but what does it mean to "sit easily"? I had > a comment I wanted to make about TM's uniqueness, and > that was kind of my starting point. > > (Not to dismiss the rest of what you said; I just don't > have anything to add to it right now.) >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:17 PM, authfriend wrote: We've been down this road before, Judy, and your point is ludicrous. Oh, it most certainly is not ludicrous. I'm sick and tired of being pegged as a True Believer because I quote something MMY has said in a discussion *about* what he has said. I've seen it happen to others as well. I haven't pegged you as anything except someone who on occasion parses endlessly to the point of absurdity. I think it mostly boils down to not being able to accept at face-value what someone does say, having to look for hidden meanings, etc. Maybe it's the editor coming out in you, or possibly the flake coming out in me. In any case, I find trying to separate what someone has said from "what someone has said is true" to be a distinction without a difference. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
> > > > Billy - They all come from Guru Dev and the Sri > > > > Vidya sect of Karnataka. > > > > Billy wrote: > Then MMY should publicly say so~! and make it part > of the official TM doctrine regarding, "Origins of the > mantras used by transcendental meditation as founded by MMY". > Billy, you're not making much sense. The mantra of Saraswati comes from the Shankaracharya sect that worships Saraswati. Why do you suppose that they append Saraswati to their name? It is common knowledge that the Shankaracharya tradition of Saraswati Swamis is headqurtered at Sringeri. You DO know what the TM mantra for Saraswati is, right? > > Marshy told me himself that he got my TM mantra from > > his guru, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. It is a fact that > > the TM mantra used by Swami Brahmananda Saraswati came > > from the Sri Vidya sect and from his Master, Swami > > Krishnanand Saraswati of Sringeri, Judy. Where do you > > think the bija mantra for Saraswati would come from if > > not from the Saraswati Dasanamis of Sringeri? > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually that isn't the first instruction. The > *very* first instruction is, "Sit easily." > > What does that mean? > > I would welcome a discussion about TM and other meditations. I am > rethinking this area. I think you might have found a lot of TTC a > pain in the ass Judy. but I think you would have really enjoyed > teaching. It was a lot of fun. MMY really did create a mass > produced service that did deliver. Mostly it was the memorization > which, as you know as a checker was relentless. In fact your > experience as a checker is a perfect background for making > distinctions that I am interested in. For the record, I was never certified as a checker. I did take checker training and was working toward the exam, but something intervened, I can't remember what, and I never took it up again. > I've been doing some meditation lately. I am experimenting with > not using the mantra. In past discussions you thought that > perhaps it was going on unconsciously, and I really have no answer > for that. It could be. But specifically I've just been sitting, > noticing my breath and when my mind goes off in a thought,and I > remember, I come back to noticing my breath. So sitting easily is > key. Yeah, but what does it mean to "sit easily"? I had a comment I wanted to make about TM's uniqueness, and that was kind of my starting point. (Not to dismiss the rest of what you said; I just don't have anything to add to it right now.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 19, 2008, at 3:14 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > I find > > it hard to believe that plenty of Japa practicers didn't chill out > > with a similar technique to TM. > > > And of course they have. It's nothing new at all--except "canned" > parts like "checking" ROTFL!! and mantra selection. >
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 5:02 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret! On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Don’t know about mantra selection, but IMO checking and the 7-steps were a stroke of genius. It was innovative. The problem is whenever you "can" something like this, there's bound to be people who fall thru the cracks. An acharya or a trained guru will have many options for when things go wrong, as in when the wrong mantra leads to problems and the mantra needs changed, etc. Agreed. But just for the record, I’ve “checked” the meditation of a couple of people at Amma events who had been trying to meditate using a mantra she gave them, but resisting thoughts, etc., and it made a huge difference in the quality of their experience. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008 7:32 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2008, at 4:17 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > I'm mystified by why so many people get confused > > about the difference between "This is what MMY > > says" and "What MMY says is true." > > So then you're saying that what MMY says, at least on occasion, he > might feel to be lies or half-truths, but he says it anyway? No, I'm not saying that. Obviously MMY has said a lot of things that don't seem to have been true, but "mistaken" is another possibility. > We've been down this road before, Judy, and your point is > ludicrous. Oh, it most certainly is not ludicrous. I'm sick and tired of being pegged as a True Believer because I quote something MMY has said in a discussion *about* what he has said. I've seen it happen to others as well. This discussion was about *whether* he had said anything about the origin of the technique. Some were saying he hadn't. I brought up the essay to point out that in effect, he had, via Domash, in an official and important (to the TMO) publication. And Vaj promptly called me "gullible," when I hadn't said a word about whether I believed the account or not. It's really just a way of avoiding the issue. We see it here all the time. If you diss the person quoting MMY as a TB, then you don't have to actually consider whatever it was MMY had been quoted as saying. Somehow the purported "gullibility" of the person doing the quoting automatically makes whatever they were quoting null and void. I have no idea, and neither does anybody else here, whether what MMY had Domash say in the essay is accurate. It seems *plausible* to me--I haven't heard anybody make any good arguments against it-- but that's it. It's also plausible to me that he made it up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's secret!
Actually that isn't the first instruction. The *very* first instruction is, "Sit easily." What does that mean? I would welcome a discussion about TM and other meditations. I am rethinking this area. I think you might have found a lot of TTC a pain in the ass Judy. but I think you would have really enjoyed teaching. It was a lot of fun. MMY really did create a mass produced service that did deliver. Mostly it was the memorization which, as you know as a checker was relentless. In fact your experience as a checker is a perfect background for making distinctions that I am interested in. I've been doing some meditation lately. I am experimenting with not using the mantra. In past discussions you thought that perhaps it was going on unconsciously, and I really have no answer for that. It could be. But specifically I've just been sitting, noticing my breath and when my mind goes off in a thought,and I remember, I come back to noticing my breath. So sitting easily is key. When I use a mantra that seems similar, although after 18 years my old advanced long ass mantras seem like overkill, so I tend to end up with a shorter version. Since I don't really buy the unique sound theory, I don't really feel the need for the mantra to do what I am looking for. I come out feeling centered and good, just as I remember from TM. I don't feel a need for it regularly, and am not seeking any higher state, but from time to time it is nice to have this tool back in my life as an option. Kind of a ramble, kind of an invitation for experiences. Sitting quietly is something that MMY taught me. Even though he brought me to it with a specific technique, the heart of it is still there without anything much. I appreciate him for that. I am interested to experience this state of quietness without much belief baggage. It doesn't change the experience, which was always innocent, but it changes how I feel about the state of mind it cultivates. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > I am having trouble with the uniqueness claim of TM. I'll give MMY > > credit for standardizing the teaching process for his teachers. But > > even the descriptions of the Jesus prayer for Christian monks > (before > > some of them learned TM) is very similar. I'm really not sure the > > whole concentration thing isn't just one version and effortless > > practice another. Like the noticing your breath technique that has > > been around forever. That is not a concentration. You just go back > > to noticing when you are off the breath just like the mantra. > > There's more (or perhaps less) to it than that. > > I wish Lawson were still here. He had a knack for > explaining this succinctly. > > Do you remember the response you were supposed to > give when someone asked why TM couldn't be learned > from a book? "The first instruction is, 'Close the > eyes.'" > > Actually that isn't the first instruction. The > *very* first instruction is, "Sit easily." > > What does that mean? >
