[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
It may be that techniques have a certain life span in this spiritual business. If you get one too early, it won't work. If you use one for a long time, it might come to a natural interruption; you stop, then start again later. It might come to a natural end. For example, with TM, you sometimes switch techniques, advancing the technique. Other systems may do the same, they give you techniques for a certain specific purpose, and if that purpose if fulfilled, you need it no more. For example, Zen koans are techniques for illuminating certain facets of experience. Starting and Stopping are natural transitions. For example, if you get hit by a car traveling at 200km/hr your spiritual progress transitions to an absolute value.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Sharalyn" wrote: > To whoever wrote this: > > > you are an idiot - I did TM for 20 years, twice a day, every day - it took > > me that long to realize it wasn't the only game in town - stupid me. > > > > Stupid? > > I came to FFL today to ask a specific question and then get back out again, > but it was unavoidable to see a couple of quotes that peaked a reaction from > me, yours being one of them. I think you have missed the point, that just > because there are other "games" does not mean they would have worked for you > any earlier or that you would have even found them any sooner. > > Consider this: > > I had to do TM for 3 years before I quit smoking because it suddenly became > so repulsive that I had to quit. There are many methods to quit smoking but > over the 18 years i smoked I never found anything else that worked. > Furthermore, over the next few years, 3 of my non-meditating family members > died of lung cancer. So, who was stupid? > > I had to meditate for 5 years before I was smart enough to go from being a > drop-out to making an "A" in statistics class, and then to become the first > and only person in my family to get higher education, both a BA and a MA. > There are many colleges and learning methods, but none of them worked for me. > Today I am so well established intellectually that I could go to any school, > but do you think it would have happened, just out of the blue, merely an > accident of fate, that I suddenly got smarter, learned to concentrate, and > succeeded in school, or do you think it's more likely that I learned an easy > method, one that required no concentration or effort, called TM? Was there > any other "game" in town which I would have tried? Seriously unlikely. > > I had to meditate for 15 years before I got smart enough to be successful in > psychotherapy. I'd tried therapy a few times before and always quit within > weeks of starting. So where did the desire, determination, courage, and other > aspects of character come from for me to be successful? It certainly wasn't > just my therapist, or his methods, but rather despite them that I succeeded. > My relatives continued to live out what would have been my fate without > TM--they became alcoholics, drug addicts, and suicides. Some finally found > other games: AA, religion, prayer. Care to make comparisons in benefits and > outcomes? Do you think I would have been so different than the rest of my > family to suddenly "wake up" to discover any other system or to work at it if > it required more effort than TM? To think so is to think irrationally. > > I had to meditate for 20 years before I could bear to be in the same room > with my mother, to become loving, understanding, tolerant, and to overcome > the temper and other aspects of our family dysfunctions. The rest of my > family, including my son, are to this day still locked in those same > dysfunctions. Why was that I rose to higher planes when they, who could have > found alternatives, didn't do so? What made me grow so far so fast so deep > when they didn't? It certainly wasn't prayer or religion for some of them > practice that religiously. > > I will skip over what happened after 20 years except to say that I had to > meditate for 35 years to become so wise and compassionate that I developed > the ability to heal others. Healing is just common sense work when you can > see the laws of nature, but do you think I could see these laws of nature > without all these years of practicing TM? > > I have known that for years that there are "other games in town": Tolle, > Adyshanti, Amma, Peruvian Shaminism, etc. etc. etc. etc., including some very > enlightened people right here in Fairfield. (I know enough about these games > to have taught college metaphysics and Comparative Meditation Techniques.) > Most of them have enriched my life and my spiritual understanding but this > growth would not have happened had they been my original teachers. It took > years of meditating for me to open up mentally, emotionally, spiritually to > what they to offer. But of what value would they be if my consciousness was > not already awakened? And have you observed, who succeeds at these other > "games" better than former meditators? It requires an awakening to even be > able to utilize these other "games." > > But there is another point that one needs to appreciate to understand where > you are coming from. > > My observation is that there are 3 stages of gaining knowledge. The first > stage is blind devotion. (This is not a stupid stage, as many make it out to > be; it is a very healthy stage of purifying formation of character, > intellect, and spiritual growth). Where Maharishi's teachings are concerned, > we followed him because the message made sense. Unlike many other teachings, > his are orderly and comprehensive and they created a framework for us to > unde
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
doctordumbass: > "A poignant example of this, related to me by at least > half a different spiritual teachers from traditions > other than TM..." > > *How* many?? > > > Spiritual teachers which shall remain unnamed. Go figure. A guy like Uncle Tantra probably doesn't have much time to study with spiritual teachers when they spend hours a day watching TV and writing English language User Manuals in Microsoft Word and post to FFL every night, including posting Saturday night. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
if Barry is to be driven mad by the success of TM, he is destined for a loong life of utter sanity. And Vedic Masters??? What a joke! U referring to the rajas or are there some secret Hindoos we don't know about? Show me the people who got enlightened thru TM - come on show me. Enlightenment if it exists, has nothing to do with TM or any meditation - it come when it comes - it certainly has nothing to do with good karma, oh and by the way people like your fellow German Eckhart Tolle and that feller Adyashanti are among those who say meditation has nothing to do with enlightenment. But for me, I like UG Krishnamurti who says there is no such thing as enlightenment at all. People call me an 'enlightened man' -- I detest that term -- they can't find any other word to describe the way I am functioning. At the same time, I point out that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all. I say that because all my life I've searched and wanted to be an enlightened man, and I discovered that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all, and so the question whether a particular person is enlightened or not doesn't arise. I don't give a hoot for a sixth-century-BC Buddha, let alone all the other claimants we have in our midst. They are a bunch of exploiters, thriving on the gullibility of the people. There is no power outside of man. Man has created God out of fear. So the problem is fear and not God. - UG Krishnamurti From: nablusoss1008 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2013 1:37 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > It drives Barry stark staring BONKERS that DrD doesn't > > > > > give a rusty nail whether anyone believes he's enlightened. What is much worse for the Turq than the idea of the big E is that it comes from practise of TM, good karma, timing and grace by the Vedic Masters. He can probably live with the fact that some achieve freedom, but from TM ??? No "F**" way, not in this lifetime. It's a painful reminder that he vasted his life on trickers and llamas instead of doing what the only Master he ever met, however briefly, suggested. It's the success of TM that drives him "stark staring BONKERS" or to use his own words: Bat Shit Crazy :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to navashok
Good for me to remember. I got in trouble last time because I didn't immediately recognize you with your new alias (-: From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Ann and navashok --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Whaat? That wasn't me who made the joke about > you going to Paris with turqish delight. Was it? No, it wasn't aimed at you. > I admit I'm beside myself what with fluffy unicorns from you and cute >spammish meeses from Ann. Thank you both and happy trails to navashok. >Will you have a new handle when you return? (-: > I'm back as Navashok. I usually change my handle only if I'm away for a longer period. > > > > From: navashok > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 5:00 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Rick and navashok > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > Navashok, just to say again, there is a checking for TMSP. > > Okay Share, just to let you know that I have seen this. I'm going out of town > tomorrow, so will be back only next week, and still have to pack, and no, I > am not going to Paris ;-) > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4i7vS_UO4Q > > > I know people who have had it. > > Rick, maybe I don't get booted because I'm not a gov. Even when I was a > > grad student and open about going to tantric workshops of David Deida, no > > one said anything to me. EFT tapping is based on acupuncture meridian > > points so I don't see how that would be objectionable. And last but not > > least, my pastoral counselor has been on IAA since the beginning! Would > > she be if therapy was objectionable?! > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rick Archer > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:21 AM > > Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael > > > > > >  > >  > > From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of Share Long > > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:32 AM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael > >  > >  > > There ABSOLUTELY is a checking for TMSP. I know of people who have had > > it. Does that change your idea that the mantra theory is nonsense? > >  > > Speaking as someone who has done therapy and energy work over the years, > > including EFT tapping, I would say this: TM is necessary for emotional > > and energetic healing. But it is not sufficient for someone who may > > have major trauma especially from early childhood. I think TM developed > > my wisdom and common sense to the point that I sought out other > > modalities. And I would say this to anyone in the TMO. > >  > > Actually I think it's proof that TM is not a cult, the fact that someone > > like me goes to the Dome every day twice a day and wisely seeks out > > whatever healing modalities I think I need. > >  > > I don’t know about current policies, but in the past people have > > been booted out of the dome or kept off courses for doing that. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > OTOH, I have used many non sanskrit mantras, for example
> > > > Hebrew words, or the most clear example are the Siddhis,
> > > > which are simply English words, Inner Light for example.
> > > > So, all of the TM logic about why TM is so effective,
> > > > that its a word without meaning, that it has a special
> > > > sound quality, goes out of the window when it comes to
> > > > Siddhis.
> > >
> > > The sutras used in the TM-Sidhi program *are not mantras*;
> > > sutra practice *is not meditation*.
> >
> > It's nice that you make up new definitions for the TMO
>
> I'm not "making up new definitions for the TMO," I'm
> pointing out that you're full of baloney.
> > but maybe, before you make your own proclamations, as to what
> > meditations consists of or not, why not go by the definition of
> > Maharishi - Patanjali I mean:
>
> Well, because we were talking about TM-Sidhis practice
> as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, not what Wikipedia
> teaches about samyama.
>
> > trayam ekatra saṃyamaḥ .. 4..
> >
> > These three together [dhāraṇā, dhyāna and
> > samādhi] constitute integration or saṃyama.
> >
> > Combined simultaneous practice of Dhāraṇā (concentration),
> > Dhyāna (meditation) & Samādhi (union). A tool to receive deeper
> > knowledge of qualities of the object. It is a term summarizing the
> > "catch-all" process of psychological absorption in the object of
> > meditation.[2]
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyama
> >
> > So, you see Jody, samyama does contain Meditation (dhyana)
> > and Samadhi, which is usually seen as the result of
> > meditation, and Dharana, focused awareness or concentration,
> > is usually also associated with meditation. So, to cut the
> > story short, the siddhi practice of samyama is a type of
> > meditation that is different from TM.
>
> As you know if you took the TM-Sidhis (and remember what
> you were taught), the above does not accurately describe
> TM-Sidhis practice.
This is the very definition of the Yoga sutras, and has been used by the TMO in
various brochures and by MMY in innumerable lectures. (eye-rolling, shaking
head). But it's nice you are making new definitions, not only for meditation,
but also for what the siddhis are comprised of, namely Samyama:
Here another translation:
trayam-ekatra saṁyamaḥ ||4||
The three processes of dharana, dhyana, and samadhi, when taken together, are
the components of meditation (samyama). ||4||
> > > That the sutras are
> > > words/phrases with semantic meaning has nothing to do with
> > > what is said about the mantras; nothing "goes out the
> > > window" on that basis.
> >
> > You are just not thinking and listening. You just react,
> > knee-jerk reaction. If you would actually think about it,
> > you'd have to acknowledge that within the TM framework
> > there exist a type of meditation program where you
> > actually repeat certain western words and phrases with
> > semantic meaning.
>
> I have never disputed that a technique in which one repeats
> words and phrases with semantic meaning (in the local language)
> is part of the TM-Sidhis program.
It IS the Siddhi program
> What I dispute is the idea
> that the use of this technique somehow negates what is said
> about the mantras used in the plain-vanilla TM technique.
Well, you would have to admit it, if you THINK beyond ready-made definitions.
But you have to think for yourself.
> > Maybe you don't easily see it like this, as the most common
> > practice is with a sequence of changing phrases, the sutras,
> > but on special courses, or in particular situations, people
> > could practice one or two sutras more extensively, for longer
> > periods of time. So here the parallel of practicing a western
> > phrase (for example 'inner light') to repeating a mantra
> > becomes more obvious.
>
> But not nearly parallel enough to justify your claim concerning
> the mantras used in plain-vanilla TM.
Absolutely justified. See below.
> > > > They have meaning, which is obviously important, as they
> > > > are translated to the local languages. And everybody here
> > > > will claim that they work just well and deepen the
> > > > experience of TM.
> > >
> > > If by "they work just well" you meant to write "they work
> > > just AS well" ("just well" isn't English), meaning the
> > > sutras work just as well as the mantra, anyone who did say
> > > that would be confused. The mantra one uses for plain-
> > > vanilla TM and the sutras one uses in TM-Sidhis practice
> > > are for different purposes and the methods of using them
> > > are different. They "work" differently.
>
> You did not respond to this. The last two sentences in
> particular are the heart of the matt
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > OTOH, I have used many non sanskrit mantras, for example
> > > Hebrew words, or the most clear example are the Siddhis,
> > > which are simply English words, Inner Light for example.
> > > So, all of the TM logic about why TM is so effective,
> > > that its a word without meaning, that it has a special
> > > sound quality, goes out of the window when it comes to
> > > Siddhis.
> >
> > The sutras used in the TM-Sidhi program *are not mantras*;
> > sutra practice *is not meditation*.
>
> It's nice that you make up new definitions for the TMO
I'm not "making up new definitions for the TMO," I'm
pointing out that you're full of baloney.
> but maybe, before you make your own proclamations, as to what
> meditations consists of or not, why not go by the definition of
> Maharishi - Patanjali I mean:
Well, because we were talking about TM-Sidhis practice
as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, not what Wikipedia
teaches about samyama.
> trayam ekatra saṃyamaḥ .. 4..
>
> These three together [dhāraṇā, dhyāna and samādhi]
> constitute integration or saṃyama.
>
> Combined simultaneous practice of Dhāraṇā (concentration),
> Dhyāna (meditation) & Samādhi (union). A tool to receive deeper
> knowledge of qualities of the object. It is a term summarizing the
> "catch-all" process of psychological absorption in the object of
> meditation.[2]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyama
>
> So, you see Jody, samyama does contain Meditation (dhyana)
> and Samadhi, which is usually seen as the result of
> meditation, and Dharana, focused awareness or concentration,
> is usually also associated with meditation. So, to cut the
> story short, the siddhi practice of samyama is a type of
> meditation that is different from TM.
As you know if you took the TM-Sidhis (and remember what
you were taught), the above does not accurately describe
TM-Sidhis practice.
> > That the sutras are
> > words/phrases with semantic meaning has nothing to do with
> > what is said about the mantras; nothing "goes out the
> > window" on that basis.
>
> You are just not thinking and listening. You just react,
> knee-jerk reaction. If you would actually think about it,
> you'd have to acknowledge that within the TM framework
> there exist a type of meditation program where you
> actually repeat certain western words and phrases with
> semantic meaning.
I have never disputed that a technique in which one repeats
words and phrases with semantic meaning (in the local language)
is part of the TM-Sidhis program. What I dispute is the idea
that the use of this technique somehow negates what is said
about the mantras used in the plain-vanilla TM technique.
> Maybe you don't easily see it like this, as the most common
> practice is with a sequence of changing phrases, the sutras,
> but on special courses, or in particular situations, people
> could practice one or two sutras more extensively, for longer
> periods of time. So here the parallel of practicing a western
> phrase (for example 'inner light') to repeating a mantra
> becomes more obvious.
But not nearly parallel enough to justify your claim concerning
the mantras used in plain-vanilla TM.
> > > They have meaning, which is obviously important, as they
> > > are translated to the local languages. And everybody here
> > > will claim that they work just well and deepen the
> > > experience of TM.
> >
> > If by "they work just well" you meant to write "they work
> > just AS well" ("just well" isn't English), meaning the
> > sutras work just as well as the mantra, anyone who did say
> > that would be confused. The mantra one uses for plain-
> > vanilla TM and the sutras one uses in TM-Sidhis practice
> > are for different purposes and the methods of using them
> > are different. They "work" differently.
You did not respond to this. The last two sentences in
particular are the heart of the matter.
> > > Btw. where is the checking procedure of the siddhis?
> >
> > TM-Sidhi administrators come around to TM centers on a
> > regular basis to make it available. It's also often
> > available on big WPAs.
>
> So, Jody, how many TM Sidhi checkings did you get so far?
One.
> Did you ever get one, and then how is the relation to the
> TM checkings you got in quantity?
>
> I practiced the sidhis over a period of 11 to 12 years and
> there was no special checking for sidhis, so it could not
> have been very important.
If it wasn't, why have they made it more available in
recent years?
I think it would be accurate to say it isn't considered
as *necessary* as TM checking is, but it's certainly as
important if one is having problems with the practice.
Again, though, the two practices are *so* different
in so many respects that the degree to which they can be
legitimately compared--including with regar
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
> (snip)
> > OTOH, I have used many non sanskrit mantras, for example
> > Hebrew words, or the most clear example are the Siddhis,
> > which are simply English words, Inner Light for example.
> > So, all of the TM logic about why TM is so effective,
> > that its a word without meaning, that it has a special
> > sound quality, goes out of the window when it comes to
> > Siddhis.
>
> The sutras used in the TM-Sidhi program *are not mantras*;
> sutra practice *is not meditation*.
It's nice that you make up new definitions for the TMO - but maybe, before you
make your own proclamations, as to what meditations consists of or not, why not
go by the definition of Maharishi - Patanjali I mean:
trayam ekatra saṃyamaḥ .. 4..
These three together [dhāraṇā, dhyāna and samādhi]
constitute integration or saṃyama.
Combined simultaneous practice of Dhāraṇā (concentration),
Dhyāna (meditation) & Samādhi (union). A tool to receive deeper
knowledge of qualities of the object. It is a term summarizing the "catch-all"
process of psychological absorption in the object of meditation.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyama
So, you see Jody, samyama does contain Meditation (dhyana) and Samadhi, which
is usually seen as the result of meditation, and Dharana, focused awareness or
concentration, is usually also associated with meditation. So, to cut the story
short, the siddhi practice of samyama is a type of meditation that is different
from TM.
> That the sutras are
> words/phrases with semantic meaning has nothing to do with
> what is said about the mantras; nothing "goes out the
> window" on that basis.
You are just not thinking and listening. You just react, knee-jerk reaction. If
you would actually think about it, you'd have to acknowledge that within the TM
framework there exist a type of meditation program where you actually repeat
certain western words and phrases with semantic meaning. Maybe you don't easily
see it like this, as the most common practice is with a sequence of changing
phrases, the sutras, but on special courses, or in particular situations,
people could practice one or two sutras more extensively, for longer periods of
time. So here the parallel of practicing a western phrase (for example 'inner
light') to repeating a mantra becomes more obvious.
> > They have meaning, which is obviously important, as they
> > are translated to the local languages. And everybody here
> > will claim that they work just well and deepen the
> > experience of TM.
>
> If by "they work just well" you meant to write "they work
> just AS well" ("just well" isn't English), meaning the
> sutras work just as well as the mantra, anyone who did say
> that would be confused. The mantra one uses for plain-
> vanilla TM and the sutras one uses in TM-Sidhis practice
> are for different purposes and the methods of using them
> are different. They "work" differently.
>
> > Btw. where is the checking procedure of the siddhis?
>
> TM-Sidhi administrators come around to TM centers on a
> regular basis to make it available. It's also often
> available on big WPAs.
So, Jody, how many TM Sidhi checkings did you get so far? Did you ever get one,
and then how is the relation to the TM checkings you got in quantity? I
practiced the sidhis over a period of 11 to 12 years and there was no special
checking for sidhis, so it could not have been very important.
Whereas in the TM the checking procedure starts right at the point of
initiation. In fact most of the phrases which are repeated during the steps of
initiation are almost identical to the phrases used in checking.
One technique used during initiation is in fact taken from a book from
Yogananda, which uses the same technique for affirmations, as a sort of
auto-suggestion. This is when the person is asked to repeat his mantra ever
more quietly, until he only thinks it,
http://minet.org/www.trancenet.net/secrets/checking/steps.shtml
> > You know the checking procedure has the sense to ensure
> > the correct effortless TM, why isn't there a similar
> > procedure for the siddhis?
>
> There is such a procedure. It's very different from the
> TM checking procedure because the practices are so
> different, but both are for the same purpose, to ensure
> effective practice.
Yes, I know, you have learned the standard textbook.
> > The siddhis are much more complex, you have to think the
> > words in intervals, you have to remember a whole bunch
> > of them etc. This shows to me, that the whole checking
> > procedure is indeed a (light) form of hypnosis / auto-
> > suggestion. That's why it feels so good, because you get
> > into some passive kind of guided procedure.
>
> This is utter nonsense. Nothing you've said in this post
> that I've quoted makes any sense. It's hard for me to
> believe you ever took the TM-Siddhis course or ever
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Ann and navashok
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Whaat? That wasn't me who made the joke about > you going to Paris with turqish delight. Was it? No, it wasn't aimed at you. > I admit I'm beside myself what with fluffy unicorns from you and cute >spammish meeses from Ann. Thank you both and happy trails to navashok. >Will you have a new handle when you return? (-: > I'm back as Navashok. I usually change my handle only if I'm away for a longer period. > > > > From: navashok > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 5:00 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Rick and navashok > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > Navashok, just to say again, there is a checking for TMSP.à> > Okay Share, just to let you know that I have seen this. I'm going out of town > tomorrow, so will be back only next week, and still have to pack, and no, I > am not going to Paris ;-) > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4i7vS_UO4Q > > > I know people who have had it. > > Rick, maybe I don't get booted because I'm not a gov.àEven when I was a > > grad student and open about going to tantric workshops of David Deida, no > > one said anything to me.àEFT tapping is based on acupuncture meridian > > points so I don't see how that would be objectionable.àAnd last but not > > least, my pastoral counselor has been on IAA since the beginning!àWould > > she be if therapy was objectionable?!à> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rick Archer > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:21 AM > > Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael > > > > > > à> > à> > From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of Share Long > > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:32 AM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael > > à> > à> > There ABSOLUTELY is a checking for TMSP.àI know of people who have had > > it.àDoes that change your idea that the mantra theory is nonsense?à> > à> > Speaking as someone who has done therapy and energy work over the years, > > including EFT tapping, I would say this:àTM is necessary for emotional > > and energetic healing.àBut it is not sufficient for someone who may > > have major trauma especially from early childhood.àI think TM developed > > my wisdom and common sense to the point that I sought out other > > modalities.àAnd I would say this to anyone in the TMO. > > à> > Actually I think it's proof that TM is not a cult, the fact that someone > > like me goes to the Dome every day twice a day and wisely seeks out > > whatever healing modalities I think I need.à> > à> > I donââ¬â¢t know about current policies, but in the past people have > > been booted out of the dome or kept off courses for doing that. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Ann and navashok
When someone asks me what meditation is, I sometimes say it's the process for taking time for awareness. To paraphrase Shri Maharishi Patanjali . . . 1.2 Yoga is a (process) of stilling the wandering mind. 1.3 Then Yoga becomes a (state) of awareness abiding in its own nature. As I understand it, and in my experience, TM fulfills Patanjali's definition of Yoga, as a process and as a state. I loved my mantra in the beginning, began to resent it after many years, tried a few others, and have returned to the one that has been part of my life the longest. I read a post the other day about the exponential value of regular meditation. I don't know if I'm meditating "correctly," perhaps I need to get checked, but my attention tends to abide on each part of my mantra for longer and longer periods of time. Sometimes, probably for half an hour or more, just on one part. For me, meditation, all the branches of yoga, all the branches of life have become more an open exploration and discovery. These days I take Ramana Maharishi's suggestion of it not being important to meditate for long periods. That feels right for me at the moment. Perhaps when I get closer to the final death of "my" body, that will change. Sometimes, especially in the afternoon, my mantra becomes a walking mantra. I don't like meditating much in the afternoon. I've plucked the siddhis I like and added a few not mentioned in the YS. I guess you could call me an "experimental yogi." For me, the support of everyone in the TMO for the years I was taking part, were as important for cultivating an enduring habit as what Maharishi said. And for that I am grateful to Maharishi, the TMO, and to all of you . . . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Whaat? That wasn't me who made the joke about > you going to Paris with turqish delight. Was it? I admit I'm beside > myself what with fluffy unicorns from you and cute spammish meeses from Ann. > Thank you both and happy trails to navashok. Will you have a new handle > when you return? (-: > > > > > > From: navashok > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 5:00 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Rick and navashok > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > Navashok, just to say again, there is a checking for TMSP.à> > Okay Share, just to let you know that I have seen this. I'm going out of town > tomorrow, so will be back only next week, and still have to pack, and no, I > am not going to Paris ;-) > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4i7vS_UO4Q > > > I know people who have had it. > > Rick, maybe I don't get booted because I'm not a gov.àEven when I was a > > grad student and open about going to tantric workshops of David Deida, no > > one said anything to me.àEFT tapping is based on acupuncture meridian > > points so I don't see how that would be objectionable.àAnd last but not > > least, my pastoral counselor has been on IAA since the beginning!àWould > > she be if therapy was objectionable?!à> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rick Archer > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:21 AM > > Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael > > > > > > à> > à> > From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of Share Long > > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:32 AM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael > > à> > à> > There ABSOLUTELY is a checking for TMSP.àI know of people who have had > > it.àDoes that change your idea that the mantra theory is nonsense?à> > à> > Speaking as someone who has done therapy and energy work over the years, > > including EFT tapping, I would say this:àTM is necessary for emotional > > and energetic healing.àBut it is not sufficient for someone who may > > have major trauma especially from early childhood.àI think TM developed > > my wisdom and common sense to the point that I sought out other > > modalities.àAnd I would say this to anyone in the TMO. > > à> > Actually I think it's proof that TM is not a cult, the fact that someone > > like me goes to the Dome every day twice a day and wisely seeks out > > whatever healing modalities I think I need.à> > à> > I donââ¬â¢t know about current policies, but in the past people have > > been booted out of the dome or kept off courses for doing that. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: For Buck and Sorli: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YcTaflDPFk > Subject: Sorli fra Bulandi passes > > Dear Baddi, > > I do hope this letter finds you and your family well and thriving in > beautiful Iceland. We have so many happy memories and connections of the > heart there! > > I just wanted to let you know that our precious and beloved friend, Sorli > passed away in the dawn hours after being in failing health for the last 6 > months. He was 28 years old. We are awash in feelings of appreciation and > gratitude to this magnificient horse who we were so blessed to have in our > lives thanks to YOU! Sorli brought us nothing but bliss in the 14 years he > lived with us. > > I will never forget the day Sorli arrived. It was in the winter after a very > deep snowfall. He came just after Doug had had his stroke. Doug was still > so fragile and unsteady in body and mind that we were not sure he would ride > again...something he was very worried about not being possible for himself. > I remember going out and riding Sorli to check him out in that deep soft snow > what a fabulous, life altering experience! Sorli's calm nature, his > power, fluidity, and his utter responsiveness assured me that he was going to > be a very good horse for Doug to recover on. And so it was. Some time > shortly after that unbeknownst to me, Doug snuck out the door, managed to > saddle Sorli for himself and tried him too for a few minutes, if > awkwardly but he came back in aglow with triumph and excitement. > > So Sorli's first job was to serve as a therapeutic riding horse for Doug. > Sorli took such good care of him then and has all along! I will always have > these beautiful visions of Doug riding out on Sorli sometimes for a short > spin around the neighborhood and often for hours. I never worried for his > safety. I knew Sorli would be there for him no matter what. And whenever > Doug has had a difficult day as his brain injury never completely > healedSorli was always 'best medicine' to reintegrate his mind, spirit > and body. Though living here on our little place has been a humble life for > a great horse like Sorli, none the less, Sorli and Doug were 'famous' around > town. People would say"there goes Doug Hamilton on his black > horse'"and they were always a 'head turning' pair. Doug would always > return restored, refreshed and in awe of the gifts of safety, pleasure and > power that Sorli shared so effortlessly and naturally. > > A funny Sorli story and fond memory...one day I was unhappy and in a foul > mood. Doug knew better than to try to talk me out of it! So he left the > house for a bit and after a while when I walked back into the living room > there was Sorli...calmly standing there saddled and ready to go!!He was > looking a bit guilty! He had a look of 'I know I am not supposed to be in > here! Doug did it!' I laughed so hard and all angry gloom left my > heart/mind in a flash! Sorli was my therapy horse, as well! > > And of course Sorli served so so many people in the Midwest as a sterling > example of what horses can beand the glories of the Icelandic breed in > particular. For years we would hear from people who remembered your > performance with Sorli in all those fairs we did together in those early > happy times! What fun we had together! And the enduring impression of > "Baddi and that black horse" drew so many to Icelandics! Yes, indeed. And > with your skill you would always bring out so much from Sorli and it was > evident that he enjoyed giving you all he had to give, too. > > I know that in many ways Sorli was under utilized here in America. That he > could have probably been shown more, used as a breeding horse even more, etc. > but he was fully appreciated and deeply loved by us...a real member of the > family. And of course, hundreds of people rode him...often times not even > knowing they were riding a stallion until after the ride! and through > him they became infatuated with Icelandics. Like you, he was a great > ambassador for Iceland and Icelandics all his life! > > Sorli is a great soul. A cherished friend. And even in the suffering of his > last hours, he continued to be a gentleman to the last. We are going to > cremate him. And i am wondering if I could ask a small favor. If we send a > small amount of his ashes to you in Icelandwould you be so kind as to > release them in some beautiful place for us? I like to think of this equine > son of Iceland returning to his motherland. Would that be okay? If not. We > certainly understand. > > So. Please give our love to all your dear family. And to you, old > friendagain we have the deepest gratitude for making Sorli possible for > us! We are going to miss him mightly. And for us, he is one of the greates
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > It drives Barry stark staring BONKERS that DrD doesn't > > > > > give a rusty nail whether anyone believes he's enlightened. What is much worse for the Turq than the idea of the big E is that it comes from practise of TM, good karma, timing and grace by the Vedic Masters. He can probably live with the fact that some achieve freedom, but from TM ??? No "F**" way, not in this lifetime. It's a painful reminder that he vasted his life on trickers and llamas instead of doing what the only Master he ever met, however briefly, suggested. It's the success of TM that drives him "stark staring BONKERS" or to use his own words: Bat Shit Crazy :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
Hey Sharalyn, Como sa va. Nice piece, but I do have one question. How much of what you describe below could just be attributed to life? I mean time is a healer. I am not doubting the progression you outline, but part of the aging process is more wisdom and maturity which could open the door for some the changes you describe below. What do you think? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Sharalyn" wrote: > > > > To whoever wrote this: > > > you are an idiot - I did TM for 20 years, twice a day, every day - it took me that long to realize it wasn't the only game in town - stupid me. > > > > Stupid? > > I came to FFL today to ask a specific question and then get back out again, but it was unavoidable to see a couple of quotes that peaked a reaction from me, yours being one of them. I think you have missed the point, that just because there are other "games" does not mean they would have worked for you any earlier or that you would have even found them any sooner. > > Consider this: > > I had to do TM for 3 years before I quit smoking because it suddenly became so repulsive that I had to quit. There are many methods to quit smoking but over the 18 years i smoked I never found anything else that worked. Furthermore, over the next few years, 3 of my non-meditating family members died of lung cancer. So, who was stupid? > > I had to meditate for 5 years before I was smart enough to go from being a drop-out to making an "A" in statistics class, and then to become the first and only person in my family to get higher education, both a BA and a MA. There are many colleges and learning methods, but none of them worked for me. Today I am so well established intellectually that I could go to any school, but do you think it would have happened, just out of the blue, merely an accident of fate, that I suddenly got smarter, learned to concentrate, and succeeded in school, or do you think it's more likely that I learned an easy method, one that required no concentration or effort, called TM? Was there any other "game" in town which I would have tried? Seriously unlikely. > > I had to meditate for 15 years before I got smart enough to be successful in psychotherapy. I'd tried therapy a few times before and always quit within weeks of starting. So where did the desire, determination, courage, and other aspects of character come from for me to be successful? It certainly wasn't just my therapist, or his methods, but rather despite them that I succeeded. My relatives continued to live out what would have been my fate without TM--they became alcoholics, drug addicts, and suicides. Some finally found other games: AA, religion, prayer. Care to make comparisons in benefits and outcomes? Do you think I would have been so different than the rest of my family to suddenly "wake up" to discover any other system or to work at it if it required more effort than TM? To think so is to think irrationally. > > I had to meditate for 20 years before I could bear to be in the same room with my mother, to become loving, understanding, tolerant, and to overcome the temper and other aspects of our family dysfunctions. The rest of my family, including my son, are to this day still locked in those same dysfunctions. Why was that I rose to higher planes when they, who could have found alternatives, didn't do so? What made me grow so far so fast so deep when they didn't? It certainly wasn't prayer or religion for some of them practice that religiously. > > I will skip over what happened after 20 years except to say that I had to meditate for 35 years to become so wise and compassionate that I developed the ability to heal others. Healing is just common sense work when you can see the laws of nature, but do you think I could see these laws of nature without all these years of practicing TM? > > I have known that for years that there are "other games in town": Tolle, Adyshanti, Amma, Peruvian Shaminism, etc. etc. etc. etc., including some very enlightened people right here in Fairfield. (I know enough about these games to have taught college metaphysics and Comparative Meditation Techniques.) Most of them have enriched my life and my spiritual understanding but this growth would not have happened had they been my original teachers. It took years of meditating for me to open up mentally, emotionally, spiritually to what they to offer. But of what value would they be if my consciousness was not already awakened? And have you observed, who succeeds at these other "games" better than former meditators? It requires an awakening to even be able to utilize these other "games." > > But there is another point that one needs to appreciate to understand where you are coming from. > > My observation is that there are 3 stages of gaining knowledge. The first stage is blind devotion. (This is not a stupid stage, as many make it out to be; it is a very healthy stage of purifying formation of character, intellect, and spiritual growth). Where Maharishi's teachin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: [snip] > Subject: Sorli fra Bulandi passes > > Dear Baddi, > > I do hope this letter finds you and your family well and thriving in > beautiful Iceland. We have so many happy memories and connections of the > heart there! > > I just wanted to let you know that our precious and beloved friend, Sorli > passed away in the dawn hours after being in failing health for the last 6 > months. He was 28 years old. We are awash in feelings of appreciation and > gratitude to this magnificient horse who we were so blessed to have in our > lives thanks to YOU! Sorli brought us nothing but bliss in the 14 years he > lived with us. > > I will never forget the day Sorli arrived. It was in the winter after a very > deep snowfall. He came just after Doug had had his stroke. Doug was still > so fragile and unsteady in body and mind that we were not sure he would ride > again...something he was very worried about not being possible for himself. > I remember going out and riding Sorli to check him out in that deep soft snow > what a fabulous, life altering experience! Sorli's calm nature, his > power, fluidity, and his utter responsiveness assured me that he was going to > be a very good horse for Doug to recover on. And so it was. Some time > shortly after that unbeknownst to me, Doug snuck out the door, managed to > saddle Sorli for himself and tried him too for a few minutes, if > awkwardly but he came back in aglow with triumph and excitement. > > So Sorli's first job was to serve as a therapeutic riding horse for Doug. > Sorli took such good care of him then and has all along! I will always have > these beautiful visions of Doug riding out on Sorli sometimes for a short > spin around the neighborhood and often for hours. I never worried for his > safety. I knew Sorli would be there for him no matter what. And whenever > Doug has had a difficult day as his brain injury never completely > healedSorli was always 'best medicine' to reintegrate his mind, spirit > and body. Though living here on our little place has been a humble life for > a great horse like Sorli, none the less, Sorli and Doug were 'famous' around > town. People would say"there goes Doug Hamilton on his black > horse'"and they were always a 'head turning' pair. Doug would always > return restored, refreshed and in awe of the gifts of safety, pleasure and > power that Sorli shared so effortlessly and naturally. > > A funny Sorli story and fond memory...one day I was unhappy and in a foul > mood. Doug knew better than to try to talk me out of it! So he left the > house for a bit and after a while when I walked back into the living room > there was Sorli...calmly standing there saddled and ready to go!!He was > looking a bit guilty! He had a look of 'I know I am not supposed to be in > here! Doug did it!' I laughed so hard and all angry gloom left my > heart/mind in a flash! Sorli was my therapy horse, as well! > > And of course Sorli served so so many people in the Midwest as a sterling > example of what horses can beand the glories of the Icelandic breed in > particular. For years we would hear from people who remembered your > performance with Sorli in all those fairs we did together in those early > happy times! What fun we had together! And the enduring impression of > "Baddi and that black horse" drew so many to Icelandics! Yes, indeed. And > with your skill you would always bring out so much from Sorli and it was > evident that he enjoyed giving you all he had to give, too. > > I know that in many ways Sorli was under utilized here in America. That he > could have probably been shown more, used as a breeding horse even more, etc. > but he was fully appreciated and deeply loved by us...a real member of the > family. And of course, hundreds of people rode him...often times not even > knowing they were riding a stallion until after the ride! and through > him they became infatuated with Icelandics. Like you, he was a great > ambassador for Iceland and Icelandics all his life! > > Sorli is a great soul. A cherished friend. And even in the suffering of his > last hours, he continued to be a gentleman to the last. We are going to > cremate him. And i am wondering if I could ask a small favor. If we send a > small amount of his ashes to you in Icelandwould you be so kind as to > release them in some beautiful place for us? I like to think of this equine > son of Iceland returning to his motherland. Would that be okay? If not. We > certainly understand. > > So. Please give our love to all your dear family. And to you, old > friendagain we have the deepest gratitude for making Sorli possible for > us! We are going to miss him mightly. And for us, he is one of the greatest > horses we have ever known, truly a first class horse in
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I know!! Every time he trots it out, because of his own confusion > > > > > > and superstition around the idea of enlightenment, he thinks he is > > > > > > being shocking and confrontational, as if he is asking me about a > > > > > > past cross dressing episode or something! > > > > > > > > > > > > He SO wants to be the arbiter of enlightenment, anointing others, > > > > > > only if it makes sense to >him< - lol. Enlightenment responds by > > > > > > immediately laughing in his sagging face, pinches his wrinkled > > > > > > cheek, tousles his thinning hair, and continues on, unperturbed, > > > > > > and undisturbed. Drives him nuts-o, but what's a Mother to do?? :-) > > > > > > > > > > O Docteur, what a little provocateur you are. And what an image you > > > > > have created here. Don't be too harsh on the guy, he is outnumbered, > > > > > outgunned and I am starting to feel compassion. I have a ways to go > > > > > in the evolution department, I admit it. Enlightenment is still a > > > > > concept for me and I am still not sure it exists as imagined by the > > > > > general population. Enlightenment is out there (in there) I just > > > > > don't think it can be quantified or qualified, defined or put in a > > > > > neat little package. It's all about degrees. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Degrees? > > > > Yes, and Dumbass here has a PhD in It[!!]. > > > > Me, just a trooper. > > > > Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. > > > > After Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. > > > > I ain't got no thing to say about It. > > > > -Buck > > > > > > > > > > Yep, life and death on the farm I spent the whole day today cremating an > > > old war horse. 12 railroad ties to reduce a viking to ashes. Life is > > > short. It is a good lesson. Make use of your time. > > > -Buck > > > > Now that is a messy way to do that. Incinerating 1200 pounds of muscle, > > gristle and bone to ashes with railroad ties?! Why did you not bury it? If > > it was put down with tranquilizer then you did the right thing but if you > > shot it maybe you should have buried it. I let the good old ones come to my > > place to be put down and buried. I have a mare I bred and she is 29 this > > year. I imagine she will be buried in my orchard in the not too distant > > future. She will have an elevated and sunny spot under a fruit tree and I > > will weep for her - copiously. Presumably you wept for yours. They deserve > > it, you know. > > > > > > > > Yes, > Subject: Sorli fra Bulandi passes > > Dear Baddi, > > I do hope this letter finds you and your family well and thriving in > beautiful Iceland. We have so many happy memories and connections of the > heart there! > > I just wanted to let you know that our precious and beloved friend, Sorli > passed away in the dawn hours after being in failing health for the last 6 > months. He was 28 years old. We are awash in feelings of appreciation and > gratitude to this magnificient horse who we were so blessed to have in our > lives thanks to YOU! Sorli brought us nothing but bliss in the 14 years he > lived with us. > > I will never forget the day Sorli arrived. It was in the winter after a very > deep snowfall. He came just after Doug had had his stroke. Doug was still > so fragile and unsteady in body and mind that we were not sure he would ride > again...something he was very worried about not being possible for himself. > I remember going out and riding Sorli to check him out in that deep soft snow > what a fabulous, life altering experience! Sorli's calm nature, his > power, fluidity, and his utter responsiveness assured me that he was going to > be a very good horse for Doug to recover on. And so it was. Some time > shortly after that unbeknownst to me, Doug snuck out the door, managed to > saddle Sorli for himself and tried him too for a few minutes, if > awkwardly but he came back in aglow with triumph and excitement. > > So Sorli's first job was to serve as a therapeutic riding horse for Doug. > Sorli took such good care of him then and has all along! I will always have > these beautiful visions of Doug riding out on Sorli sometimes for a short > spin around the neighborhood and often for hours. I never worried for his > safety. I knew Sorli would be there for him no matter what. And whenever > Doug has had a difficult day as his brain injury never completely > healedSorl
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I know!! Every time he trots it out, because of his own confusion and > > > > > superstition around the idea of enlightenment, he thinks he is being > > > > > shocking and confrontational, as if he is asking me about a past > > > > > cross dressing episode or something! > > > > > > > > > > He SO wants to be the arbiter of enlightenment, anointing others, > > > > > only if it makes sense to >him< - lol. Enlightenment responds by > > > > > immediately laughing in his sagging face, pinches his wrinkled cheek, > > > > > tousles his thinning hair, and continues on, unperturbed, and > > > > > undisturbed. Drives him nuts-o, but what's a Mother to do?? :-) > > > > > > > > O Docteur, what a little provocateur you are. And what an image you > > > > have created here. Don't be too harsh on the guy, he is outnumbered, > > > > outgunned and I am starting to feel compassion. I have a ways to go in > > > > the evolution department, I admit it. Enlightenment is still a concept > > > > for me and I am still not sure it exists as imagined by the general > > > > population. Enlightenment is out there (in there) I just don't think it > > > > can be quantified or qualified, defined or put in a neat little > > > > package. It's all about degrees. > > > > > > > > > > Degrees? > > > Yes, and Dumbass here has a PhD in It[!!]. > > > Me, just a trooper. > > > Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. > > > After Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. > > > I ain't got no thing to say about It. > > > -Buck > > > > > > > Yep, life and death on the farm I spent the whole day today cremating an > > old war horse. 12 railroad ties to reduce a viking to ashes. Life is > > short. It is a good lesson. Make use of your time. > > -Buck > > Now that is a messy way to do that. Incinerating 1200 pounds of muscle, > gristle and bone to ashes with railroad ties?! Why did you not bury it? If it > was put down with tranquilizer then you did the right thing but if you shot > it maybe you should have buried it. I let the good old ones come to my place > to be put down and buried. I have a mare I bred and she is 29 this year. I > imagine she will be buried in my orchard in the not too distant future. She > will have an elevated and sunny spot under a fruit tree and I will weep for > her - copiously. Presumably you wept for yours. They deserve it, you know. > > > > Yes, Subject: Sorli fra Bulandi passes Dear Baddi, I do hope this letter finds you and your family well and thriving in beautiful Iceland. We have so many happy memories and connections of the heart there! I just wanted to let you know that our precious and beloved friend, Sorli passed away in the dawn hours after being in failing health for the last 6 months. He was 28 years old. We are awash in feelings of appreciation and gratitude to this magnificient horse who we were so blessed to have in our lives thanks to YOU! Sorli brought us nothing but bliss in the 14 years he lived with us. I will never forget the day Sorli arrived. It was in the winter after a very deep snowfall. He came just after Doug had had his stroke. Doug was still so fragile and unsteady in body and mind that we were not sure he would ride again...something he was very worried about not being possible for himself. I remember going out and riding Sorli to check him out in that deep soft snow what a fabulous, life altering experience! Sorli's calm nature, his power, fluidity, and his utter responsiveness assured me that he was going to be a very good horse for Doug to recover on. And so it was. Some time shortly after that unbeknownst to me, Doug snuck out the door, managed to saddle Sorli for himself and tried him too for a few minutes, if awkwardly but he came back in aglow with triumph and excitement. So Sorli's first job was to serve as a therapeutic riding horse for Doug. Sorli took such good care of him then and has all along! I will always have these beautiful visions of Doug riding out on Sorli sometimes for a short spin around the neighborhood and often for hours. I never worried for his safety. I knew Sorli would be there for him no matter what. And whenever Doug has had a difficult day as his brain injury never completely healedSorli was always 'best medicine' to reintegrate his mind, spirit and body. Though living here on our little place has been a humble life for a great horse like Sorli, none the less, Sorli and Doug were 'famous' around town. People would say"there goes Doug Hamilton on h
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > I know!! Every time he trots it out, because of his own confusion and > > > > superstition around the idea of enlightenment, he thinks he is being > > > > shocking and confrontational, as if he is asking me about a past cross > > > > dressing episode or something! > > > > > > > > He SO wants to be the arbiter of enlightenment, anointing others, only > > > > if it makes sense to >him< - lol. Enlightenment responds by immediately > > > > laughing in his sagging face, pinches his wrinkled cheek, tousles his > > > > thinning hair, and continues on, unperturbed, and undisturbed. Drives > > > > him nuts-o, but what's a Mother to do?? :-) > > > > > > O Docteur, what a little provocateur you are. And what an image you have > > > created here. Don't be too harsh on the guy, he is outnumbered, outgunned > > > and I am starting to feel compassion. I have a ways to go in the > > > evolution department, I admit it. Enlightenment is still a concept for me > > > and I am still not sure it exists as imagined by the general population. > > > Enlightenment is out there (in there) I just don't think it can be > > > quantified or qualified, defined or put in a neat little package. It's > > > all about degrees. > > > > > > > Degrees? > > Yes, and Dumbass here has a PhD in It[!!]. > > Me, just a trooper. > > Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. > > After Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. > > I ain't got no thing to say about It. > > -Buck > > > > Yep, life and death on the farm I spent the whole day today cremating an old > war horse. 12 railroad ties to reduce a viking to ashes. Life is short. It > is a good lesson. Make use of your time. > -Buck Now that is a messy way to do that. Incinerating 1200 pounds of muscle, gristle and bone to ashes with railroad ties?! Why did you not bury it? If it was put down with tranquilizer then you did the right thing but if you shot it maybe you should have buried it. I let the good old ones come to my place to be put down and buried. I have a mare I bred and she is 29 this year. I imagine she will be buried in my orchard in the not too distant future. She will have an elevated and sunny spot under a fruit tree and I will weep for her - copiously. Presumably you wept for yours. They deserve it, you know. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/ > > > > > > > > > physical integration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Catchy little soundbite, but what does it actually mean? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means > > > > > > > a much shorter distance in general between desire, and > > > > > > > fulfillment of same. > > > > > > > > > > > > How's that desire of yours to have people on this forum > > > > > > actually believe you're enlightened going for you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Care to put it to the test and actually ask them? :-) > > > > > > > > > > It drives Barry stark staring BONKERS that DrD doesn't > > > > > give a rusty nail whether anyone believes he's enlightened. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > I know!! Every time he trots it out, because of his own confusion and > > > superstition around the idea of enlightenment, he thinks he is being > > > shocking and confrontational, as if he is asking me about a past cross > > > dressing episode or something! > > > > > > He SO wants to be the arbiter of enlightenment, anointing others, only if > > > it makes sense to >him< - lol. Enlightenment responds by immediately > > > laughing in his sagging face, pinches his wrinkled cheek, tousles his > > > thinning hair, and continues on, unperturbed, and undisturbed. Drives him > > > nuts-o, but what's a Mother to do?? :-) > > > > O Docteur, what a little provocateur you are. And what an image you have > > created here. Don't be too harsh on the guy, he is outnumbered, outgunned > > and I am starting to feel compassion. I have a ways to go in the evolution > > department, I admit it. Enlightenment is still a concept for me and I am > > still not sure it exists as imagined by the general population. > > Enlightenment is out there (in there) I just don't think it can be > > quantified or qualified, defined or put in a neat little package. It's all > > about degrees. > > > > Degrees? > Yes, and Dumbass here has a PhD in It[!!]. > Me, just a trooper. > Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. > After Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. > I ain't got no thing to say about It. > -Buck Well, I'll come and chop wood, carry water and feed horses with you. Oh, and dig out the occasional snowed in car too. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/ > > > > > > > > physical integration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Catchy little soundbite, but what does it actually mean? > > > > > > > > > > > > I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means > > > > > > a much shorter distance in general between desire, and > > > > > > fulfillment of same. > > > > > > > > > > How's that desire of yours to have people on this forum > > > > > actually believe you're enlightened going for you? > > > > > > > > > > Care to put it to the test and actually ask them? :-) > > > > > > > > It drives Barry stark staring BONKERS that DrD doesn't > > > > give a rusty nail whether anyone believes he's enlightened. > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > I know!! Every time he trots it out, because of his own confusion and > > > superstition around the idea of enlightenment, he thinks he is being > > > shocking and confrontational, as if he is asking me about a past cross > > > dressing episode or something! > > > > > > He SO wants to be the arbiter of enlightenment, anointing others, only if > > > it makes sense to >him< - lol. Enlightenment responds by immediately > > > laughing in his sagging face, pinches his wrinkled cheek, tousles his > > > thinning hair, and continues on, unperturbed, and undisturbed. Drives him > > > nuts-o, but what's a Mother to do?? :-) > > > > O Docteur, what a little provocateur you are. And what an image you have > > created here. Don't be too harsh on the guy, he is outnumbered, outgunned > > and I am starting to feel compassion. I have a ways to go in the evolution > > department, I admit it. Enlightenment is still a concept for me and I am > > still not sure it exists as imagined by the general population. > > Enlightenment is out there (in there) I just don't think it can be > > quantified or qualified, defined or put in a neat little package. It's all > > about degrees. > > > > Degrees? > Yes, and Dumbass here has a PhD in It[!!]. > Me, just a trooper. > Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. > After Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. > I ain't got no thing to say about It. > -Buck > Yep, life and death on the farm I spent the whole day today cremating an old war horse. 12 railroad ties to reduce a viking to ashes. Life is short. It is a good lesson. Make use of your time. -Buck > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/ > > > > > > > > physical integration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Catchy little soundbite, but what does it actually mean? > > > > > > > > > > > > I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means > > > > > > a much shorter distance in general between desire, and > > > > > > fulfillment of same. > > > > > > > > > > How's that desire of yours to have people on this forum > > > > > actually believe you're enlightened going for you? > > > > > > > > > > Care to put it to the test and actually ask them? :-) > > > > > > > > It drives Barry stark staring BONKERS that DrD doesn't > > > > give a rusty nail whether anyone believes he's enlightened. > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Ann and navashok
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Whaat? That wasn't me who made the joke about you going to Paris with turqish delight. Was it? I admit I'm beside myself what with fluffy unicorns from you and cute spammish meeses from Ann. Thank you both and happy trails to navashok. Will you have a new handle when you return? (-: How many laughed at that. Good, good. Almost everyone! (-: > From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 5:00 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Rick and navashok > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > Navashok, just to say again, there is a checking for TMSP.à> > Okay Share, just to let you know that I have seen this. I'm going out of town tomorrow, so will be back only next week, and still have to pack, and no, I am not going to Paris ;-) > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4i7vS_UO4Q > > > I know people who have had it. > > Rick, maybe I don't get booted because I'm not a gov.àEven when I was a grad student and open about going to tantric workshops of David Deida, no one said anything to me.àEFT tapping is based on acupuncture meridian points so I don't see how that would be objectionable.àAnd last but not least, my pastoral counselor has been on IAA since the beginning!àWould she be if therapy was objectionable?!à> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rick Archer > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:21 AM > > Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael > > > > > > à> > à> > From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Share Long > > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:32 AM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael > > à> > à> > There ABSOLUTELY is a checking for TMSP.àI know of people who have had it.àDoes that change your idea that the mantra theory is nonsense?à> > à> > Speaking as someone who has done therapy and energy work over the years, including EFT tapping, I would say this:àTM is necessary for emotional and energetic healing.àBut it is not sufficient for someone who may have major trauma especially from early childhood.àI think TM developed my wisdom and common sense to the point that I sought out other modalities.àAnd I would say this to anyone in the TMO. > > à> > Actually I think it's proof that TM is not a cult, the fact that someone like me goes to the Dome every day twice a day and wisely seeks out whatever healing modalities I think I need.à> > à> > I donââ¬â¢t know about current policies, but in the past people have been booted out of the dome or kept off courses for doing that. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ > wrote: > > Also I will add that Buck made me think of something with his mention > of the many healers and other spiritual practitioners in Fairfield. If > TM is so yummy and so effective and we all know that official party TM > line is that TM is all we need, then why do so many tried and true > TM'ers go to these folks? Seems like TM would be all they would need. > Hmmm. > Gotta agree with you on that one Michael. I have been wondering that for > a while now but I have my theories and won't bore anyone with them right > now. I think Share gave a pretty good answer about that. But it may not be the answer you want to hear. I pretty sure Mike likes to paint things as pretty much black or white, but the reality is quite different. Namely TM providing you with enough clarity to go about trying to straighten out some of your other issues in whatever way you see fit. I remember back in high school, in the throes of romance and relationships that I was ill prepared for, that my daily practice of TM gave me some calmness and clarity which allowed me to step back and help sort things out. And yes, I saw a psychologist at that time, which was quite necessary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > I know!! Every time he trots it out, because of his own confusion and > > superstition around the idea of enlightenment, he thinks he is being > > shocking and confrontational, as if he is asking me about a past cross > > dressing episode or something! > > > > He SO wants to be the arbiter of enlightenment, anointing others, only if > > it makes sense to >him< - lol. Enlightenment responds by immediately > > laughing in his sagging face, pinches his wrinkled cheek, tousles his > > thinning hair, and continues on, unperturbed, and undisturbed. Drives him > > nuts-o, but what's a Mother to do?? :-) > > O Docteur, what a little provocateur you are. And what an image you have > created here. Don't be too harsh on the guy, he is outnumbered, outgunned and > I am starting to feel compassion. I have a ways to go in the evolution > department, I admit it. Enlightenment is still a concept for me and I am > still not sure it exists as imagined by the general population. Enlightenment > is out there (in there) I just don't think it can be quantified or qualified, > defined or put in a neat little package. It's all about degrees. > Degrees? Yes, and Dumbass here has a PhD in It[!!]. Me, just a trooper. Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. After Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, feed horses. I ain't got no thing to say about It. -Buck > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/ > > > > > > > physical integration. > > > > > > > > > > > > Catchy little soundbite, but what does it actually mean? > > > > > > > > > > I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means > > > > > a much shorter distance in general between desire, and > > > > > fulfillment of same. > > > > > > > > How's that desire of yours to have people on this forum > > > > actually believe you're enlightened going for you? > > > > > > > > Care to put it to the test and actually ask them? :-) > > > > > > It drives Barry stark staring BONKERS that DrD doesn't > > > give a rusty nail whether anyone believes he's enlightened. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > I know!! Every time he trots it out, because of his own confusion and > superstition around the idea of enlightenment, he thinks he is being shocking > and confrontational, as if he is asking me about a past cross dressing > episode or something! > > He SO wants to be the arbiter of enlightenment, anointing others, only if it > makes sense to >him< - lol. Enlightenment responds by immediately laughing in > his sagging face, pinches his wrinkled cheek, tousles his thinning hair, and > continues on, unperturbed, and undisturbed. Drives him nuts-o, but what's a > Mother to do?? :-) O Docteur, what a little provocateur you are. And what an image you have created here. Don't be too harsh on the guy, he is outnumbered, outgunned and I am starting to feel compassion. I have a ways to go in the evolution department, I admit it. Enlightenment is still a concept for me and I am still not sure it exists as imagined by the general population. Enlightenment is out there (in there) I just don't think it can be quantified or qualified, defined or put in a neat little package. It's all about degrees. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/ > > > > > > physical integration. > > > > > > > > > > Catchy little soundbite, but what does it actually mean? > > > > > > > > I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means > > > > a much shorter distance in general between desire, and > > > > fulfillment of same. > > > > > > How's that desire of yours to have people on this forum > > > actually believe you're enlightened going for you? > > > > > > Care to put it to the test and actually ask them? :-) > > > > It drives Barry stark staring BONKERS that DrD doesn't > > give a rusty nail whether anyone believes he's enlightened. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
I assume you may be talking about me here. No problem. What was the type of meditation practiced with Rama that provided such profound experiences? Was it an effortless meditation, or one that involved effort? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > And if you are interested in challenging their supposed > truth or value. In my experience, it's these "core" or > *never challenged* beliefs that persist the longest, and > are toughest to either recognize or challenge. Stuff like > *assuming* that "effortless is better," or that "the only > way to transcend is via effortlessness." People have been > repeating that meme for so long -- in most cases *without > ever trying a technique not based on effortlessness to > see if it's really true* -- that they no longer realize > that it's a fundamental belief that underlies and shapes > all other beliefs they have about meditation in general, > and sometimes about life itself. > And it's a real *challenge*, both to identify these core > beliefs, to challenge them when you do, and then to drop > them if you find them not true or not valuable for you. > This is more effort than most people who've invested for > many years in a spiritual tradition are willing to expend. > They pay "lip service" to having walked away, but *when* > they walk away, they do so still carrying years of indoc- > trination and beliefs as baggage. .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Sharalyn" wrote: > > > > To whoever wrote this: > > > you are an idiot - I did TM for 20 years, twice a day, every day - it took > > me that long to realize it wasn't the only game in town - stupid me. > > > > Stupid? > > I came to FFL today to ask a specific question and then get back out again, > but it was unavoidable to see a couple of quotes that peaked a reaction from > me, yours being one of them. I think you have missed the point, that just > because there are other "games" does not mean they would have worked for you > any earlier or that you would have even found them any sooner. > > Consider this: > > I had to do TM for 3 years before I quit smoking because it suddenly became > so repulsive that I had to quit. There are many methods to quit smoking but > over the 18 years i smoked I never found anything else that worked. > Furthermore, over the next few years, 3 of my non-meditating family members > died of lung cancer. So, who was stupid? > > I had to meditate for 5 years before I was smart enough to go from being a > drop-out to making an "A" in statistics class, and then to become the first > and only person in my family to get higher education, both a BA and a MA. > There are many colleges and learning methods, but none of them worked for me. > Today I am so well established intellectually that I could go to any school, > but do you think it would have happened, just out of the blue, merely an > accident of fate, that I suddenly got smarter, learned to concentrate, and > succeeded in school, or do you think it's more likely that I learned an easy > method, one that required no concentration or effort, called TM? Was there > any other "game" in town which I would have tried? Seriously unlikely. > > I had to meditate for 15 years before I got smart enough to be successful in > psychotherapy. I'd tried therapy a few times before and always quit within > weeks of starting. So where did the desire, determination, courage, and other > aspects of character come from for me to be successful? It certainly wasn't > just my therapist, or his methods, but rather despite them that I succeeded. > My relatives continued to live out what would have been my fate without > TM--they became alcoholics, drug addicts, and suicides. Some finally found > other games: AA, religion, prayer. Care to make comparisons in benefits and > outcomes? Do you think I would have been so different than the rest of my > family to suddenly "wake up" to discover any other system or to work at it if > it required more effort than TM? To think so is to think irrationally. > > I had to meditate for 20 years before I could bear to be in the same room > with my mother, to become loving, understanding, tolerant, and to overcome > the temper and other aspects of our family dysfunctions. The rest of my > family, including my son, are to this day still locked in those same > dysfunctions. Why was that I rose to higher planes when they, who could have > found alternatives, didn't do so? What made me grow so far so fast so deep > when they didn't? It certainly wasn't prayer or religion for some of them > practice that religiously. > > I will skip over what happened after 20 years except to say that I had to > meditate for 35 years to become so wise and compassionate that I developed > the ability to heal others. Healing is just common sense work when you can > see the laws of nature, but do you think I could see these laws of nature > without all these years of practicing TM? > > I have known that for years that there are "other games in town": Tolle, > Adyshanti, Amma, Peruvian Shaminism, etc. etc. etc. etc., including some very > enlightened people right here in Fairfield. (I know enough about these games > to have taught college metaphysics and Comparative Meditation Techniques.) > Most of them have enriched my life and my spiritual understanding but this > growth would not have happened had they been my original teachers. It took > years of meditating for me to open up mentally, emotionally, spiritually to > what they to offer. But of what value would they be if my consciousness was > not already awakened? And have you observed, who succeeds at these other > "games" better than former meditators? It requires an awakening to even be > able to utilize these other "games." > > But there is another point that one needs to appreciate to understand where > you are coming from. > > My observation is that there are 3 stages of gaining knowledge. The first > stage is blind devotion. (This is not a stupid stage, as many make it out to > be; it is a very healthy stage of purifying formation of character, > intellect, and spiritual growth). Where Maharishi's teachings are concerned, > we followed him because the message made sense. Unlike many other teachings, > his are orderly and comprehensive and they created a framework for us t
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
To whoever wrote this: > you are an idiot - I did TM for 20 years, twice a day, every day - it took me > that long to realize it wasn't the only game in town - stupid me. > Stupid? I came to FFL today to ask a specific question and then get back out again, but it was unavoidable to see a couple of quotes that peaked a reaction from me, yours being one of them. I think you have missed the point, that just because there are other "games" does not mean they would have worked for you any earlier or that you would have even found them any sooner. Consider this: I had to do TM for 3 years before I quit smoking because it suddenly became so repulsive that I had to quit. There are many methods to quit smoking but over the 18 years i smoked I never found anything else that worked. Furthermore, over the next few years, 3 of my non-meditating family members died of lung cancer. So, who was stupid? I had to meditate for 5 years before I was smart enough to go from being a drop-out to making an "A" in statistics class, and then to become the first and only person in my family to get higher education, both a BA and a MA. There are many colleges and learning methods, but none of them worked for me. Today I am so well established intellectually that I could go to any school, but do you think it would have happened, just out of the blue, merely an accident of fate, that I suddenly got smarter, learned to concentrate, and succeeded in school, or do you think it's more likely that I learned an easy method, one that required no concentration or effort, called TM? Was there any other "game" in town which I would have tried? Seriously unlikely. I had to meditate for 15 years before I got smart enough to be successful in psychotherapy. I'd tried therapy a few times before and always quit within weeks of starting. So where did the desire, determination, courage, and other aspects of character come from for me to be successful? It certainly wasn't just my therapist, or his methods, but rather despite them that I succeeded. My relatives continued to live out what would have been my fate without TM--they became alcoholics, drug addicts, and suicides. Some finally found other games: AA, religion, prayer. Care to make comparisons in benefits and outcomes? Do you think I would have been so different than the rest of my family to suddenly "wake up" to discover any other system or to work at it if it required more effort than TM? To think so is to think irrationally. I had to meditate for 20 years before I could bear to be in the same room with my mother, to become loving, understanding, tolerant, and to overcome the temper and other aspects of our family dysfunctions. The rest of my family, including my son, are to this day still locked in those same dysfunctions. Why was that I rose to higher planes when they, who could have found alternatives, didn't do so? What made me grow so far so fast so deep when they didn't? It certainly wasn't prayer or religion for some of them practice that religiously. I will skip over what happened after 20 years except to say that I had to meditate for 35 years to become so wise and compassionate that I developed the ability to heal others. Healing is just common sense work when you can see the laws of nature, but do you think I could see these laws of nature without all these years of practicing TM? I have known that for years that there are "other games in town": Tolle, Adyshanti, Amma, Peruvian Shaminism, etc. etc. etc. etc., including some very enlightened people right here in Fairfield. (I know enough about these games to have taught college metaphysics and Comparative Meditation Techniques.) Most of them have enriched my life and my spiritual understanding but this growth would not have happened had they been my original teachers. It took years of meditating for me to open up mentally, emotionally, spiritually to what they to offer. But of what value would they be if my consciousness was not already awakened? And have you observed, who succeeds at these other "games" better than former meditators? It requires an awakening to even be able to utilize these other "games." But there is another point that one needs to appreciate to understand where you are coming from. My observation is that there are 3 stages of gaining knowledge. The first stage is blind devotion. (This is not a stupid stage, as many make it out to be; it is a very healthy stage of purifying formation of character, intellect, and spiritual growth). Where Maharishi's teachings are concerned, we followed him because the message made sense. Unlike many other teachings, his are orderly and comprehensive and they created a framework for us to understand where other teachers are coming from. The 2nd stage is disillusionment when one learns his formerly idealistic viewpoints aren't true, at least not true in the way he understood them, or true as we imaged perfec
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
I know!! Every time he trots it out, because of his own confusion and superstition around the idea of enlightenment, he thinks he is being shocking and confrontational, as if he is asking me about a past cross dressing episode or something! He SO wants to be the arbiter of enlightenment, anointing others, only if it makes sense to >him< - lol. Enlightenment responds by immediately laughing in his sagging face, pinches his wrinkled cheek, tousles his thinning hair, and continues on, unperturbed, and undisturbed. Drives him nuts-o, but what's a Mother to do?? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/ > > > > > physical integration. > > > > > > > > Catchy little soundbite, but what does it actually mean? > > > > > > I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means > > > a much shorter distance in general between desire, and > > > fulfillment of same. > > > > How's that desire of yours to have people on this forum > > actually believe you're enlightened going for you? > > > > Care to put it to the test and actually ask them? :-) > > It drives Barry stark staring BONKERS that DrD doesn't > give a rusty nail whether anyone believes he's enlightened. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/ > > > > physical integration. > > > > > > Catchy little soundbite, but what does it actually mean? > > > > I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means > > a much shorter distance in general between desire, and > > fulfillment of same. > > How's that desire of yours to have people on this forum > actually believe you're enlightened going for you? > > Care to put it to the test and actually ask them? :-) It drives Barry stark staring BONKERS that DrD doesn't give a rusty nail whether anyone believes he's enlightened.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Thank you, Navashok! He doesn't deserve your thanks unless you're grateful to be handed a great big pile of garbage. > You post has actually answered my questions about mantras. > In my opinion, the fact that there is no sort of checking > for sidhis means the idea that the meaningless sound theory > of the mantras is nonsense and that as you said the entire > checking procedure is a form of auto-suggestion - that > explains it very well, and so we see that there is nothing, > neither the mantras themselves nor the instructions on how > to use them that makes TM better than any other meditation. 1. There *is* checking for the TM-Sidhis. It's a different type of procedure from TM checking, but the two are for the same purpose: to ensure the effectiveness of the practice. 2. That the instructions for TM-Sidhis practice are not the same as the instructions for TM practice has zero relevance for the validity or effectiveness of either. Navashok either doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, or is trying to confuse you and other readers with a big fat red herring. It's like saying that because the doctor gave you an antiviral medication for the flu, therefore the idea that an antibiotic will cure a urinary tract infection is quackery. Makes no sense AT ALL. Sutra practice is not just a variant form of TM.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Ann and navashok
Whaat? That wasn't me who made the joke about you going to Paris with turqish delight. Was it? I admit I'm beside myself what with fluffy unicorns from you and cute spammish meeses from Ann. Thank you both and happy trails to navashok. Will you have a new handle when you return? (-: From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 5:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Rick and navashok --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Navashok, just to say again, there is a checking for TMSP. Okay Share, just to let you know that I have seen this. I'm going out of town tomorrow, so will be back only next week, and still have to pack, and no, I am not going to Paris ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4i7vS_UO4Q > I know people who have had it. > Rick, maybe I don't get booted because I'm not a gov. Even when I was a > grad student and open about going to tantric workshops of David Deida, no one > said anything to me. EFT tapping is based on acupuncture meridian points so > I don't see how that would be objectionable. And last but not least, my > pastoral counselor has been on IAA since the beginning! Would she be if > therapy was objectionable?! > > > > > > From: Rick Archer > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:21 AM > Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael > > >  >  > From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On > Behalf Of Share Long > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:32 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael >  >  > There ABSOLUTELY is a checking for TMSP. I know of people who have had it. > Does that change your idea that the mantra theory is nonsense? >  > Speaking as someone who has done therapy and energy work over the years, > including EFT tapping, I would say this: TM is necessary for emotional and > energetic healing. But it is not sufficient for someone who may have major > trauma especially from early childhood. I think TM developed my wisdom and > common sense to the point that I sought out other modalities. And I would > say this to anyone in the TMO. >  > Actually I think it's proof that TM is not a cult, the fact that someone like > me goes to the Dome every day twice a day and wisely seeks out whatever > healing modalities I think I need. >  > I don’t know about current policies, but in the past people have been > booted out of the dome or kept off courses for doing that. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
(snip)
> OTOH, I have used many non sanskrit mantras, for example
> Hebrew words, or the most clear example are the Siddhis,
> which are simply English words, Inner Light for example.
> So, all of the TM logic about why TM is so effective,
> that its a word without meaning, that it has a special
> sound quality, goes out of the window when it comes to
> Siddhis.
The sutras used in the TM-Sidhi program *are not mantras*;
sutra practice *is not meditation*. That the sutras are
words/phrases with semantic meaning has nothing to do with
what is said about the mantras; nothing "goes out the
window" on that basis.
> They have meaning, which is obviously important, as they
> are translated to the local languages. And everybody here
> will claim that they work just well and deepen the
> experience of TM.
If by "they work just well" you meant to write "they work
just AS well" ("just well" isn't English), meaning the
sutras work just as well as the mantra, anyone who did say
that would be confused. The mantra one uses for plain-
vanilla TM and the sutras one uses in TM-Sidhis practice
are for different purposes and the methods of using them
are different. They "work" differently.
> Btw. where is the checking procedure of the siddhis?
TM-Sidhi administrators come around to TM centers on a
regular basis to make it available. It's also often
available on big WPAs.
> You know the checking procedure has the sense to ensure
> the correct effortless TM, why isn't there a similar
> procedure for the siddhis?
There is such a procedure. It's very different from the
TM checking procedure because the practices are so
different, but both are for the same purpose, to ensure
effective practice.
> The siddhis are much more complex, you have to think the
> words in intervals, you have to remember a whole bunch
> of them etc. This shows to me, that the whole checking
> procedure is indeed a (light) form of hypnosis / auto-
> suggestion. That's why it feels so good, because you get
> into some passive kind of guided procedure.
This is utter nonsense. Nothing you've said in this post
that I've quoted makes any sense. It's hard for me to
believe you ever took the TM-Sidhis course or ever
learned how to do checking.
(And I've never found that checking "feels so good," in
the sense of better than meditating on my own. Nor have
I ever heard anyone else say that.)
(snip)
> Yep, exactly. And in most cases it returns to one mantra
> with the advanced techniques, all can get the same mantra.
I can't speak to any advanced technique beyond the first,
which is all I have, but I didn't get a different mantra
from the one I had been given to start with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: (snip) > > And if you are interested in challenging their supposed > > truth or value. In my experience, it's these "core" or > > *never challenged* beliefs that persist the longest, and > > are toughest to either recognize or challenge. Stuff like > > *assuming* that "effortless is better," or that "the only > > way to transcend is via effortlessness." People have been > > repeating that meme for so long -- in most cases *without > > ever trying a technique not based on effortlessness to > > see if it's really true* -- that they no longer realize > > that it's a fundamental belief that underlies and shapes > > all other beliefs they have about meditation in general, > > and sometimes about life itself. Or they may say something like, "(Obviously the whole business is based on the premise that the most effective way to transcend is not to exert any effort, a point some disagree with.)" But Barry, of course, fails to notice it when they do. > A poignant example of this, related to me by at least > half a different spiritual teachers from traditions > other than TM, has to do with what long-term TMers > come to their public introductory talks. Often a tech- > nique of meditation is taught, and of course they sit > there and look as if they're trying it, just like > everyone else in the audience. This tale smells very strongly of bogosity. My guess is that it happened more or less like this one time to one teacher, who told Barry about it, and he morphed it in his imagination into a trend. As we all know, Barry is a practiced liar. But he's been having more and more trouble putting his lies across lately; he's losing the knack of making them sound believable. One of the telltale signs here is the two big writing errors in the paragraph above; another is the fact that he starts out talking about "long-term TMers" and halfway through changes it to "former TMers." Plus which, the story just doesn't hang together very well; he hasn't managed to tell it so that it sounds like something that may actually have taken place. > But all of these teachers have related the same story > to me. Some of these TMers actually come up to them > later and ask to meet with them privately, because > they're interested in attending more talks, or study- > ing with them, often because they liked the overall > energy of the group or of the teacher, or liked the > things he or she talked about. > > What these teachers have learned to do, out of long > experience, is to ask the former TMers, "When we > practiced the meditation I was teaching, did you > actually *try* it, or did you sit there doing TM? > Be scrupulously honest now." > > In *most* cases, when dealing with former TMers, they > admit that they never *did* try the new technique of > meditation. Some admit that some part of them still > felt "guilty" about trying it, as if doing so were > somehow "wrong" or "sinful," and others admitted to > not having tried it because "they already knew how > to meditate." > > Most of these teachers at this point asked the person > applying to study with them to go away, and return > when they had regained the ability to achieve > "Beginner's Mind," and approach a new study with > humility, and not with arrogance. Few ever did. (snip) > > Can't argue with that. How you gonna keep 'em down on > > the farm after they've seen Par-eee? Don't ever allow > > them to see Par-eee. :-) But then you're not keeping them down on the farm after they've seen Paree, are you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
Man, you have a very, very poor memory, Turq (as if that's a surprise). My insistence on my enlightenment, CC at the time, was as a demonstration that enlightenment was possible for anyone, and not the pie in the sky unobtainable state that you and your now absent fair weather friends insisted upon. You are sorely mistaken if you think I have ever been concerned that someone doesn't think I am enlightened. Enlightenment doesn't care about anyone else's opinion. It is a personal measure of success. However, I would like to gently remind you that I AM ENLIGHTENED, and don't you ever forget it!!! LOL! Seriously, fulfillment of desires once enlightened, once spiritually liberated, makes a life like yours, Turq, look pitiful and pathetic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/ > > > > physical integration. > > > > > > Catchy little soundbite, but what does it actually mean? > > > > I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means > > a much shorter distance in general between desire, and > > fulfillment of same. > > How's that desire of yours to have people on this forum > actually believe you're enlightened going for you? > > Care to put it to the test and actually ask them? :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
No - don't BS yourself. It is simply a relative measurement of how well your desires have been fulfilled in the past, vs. now. If mind/body coordination is increasing, then YF is working, and desires are fulfilled more quickly. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means a much shorter > > distance in general between desire, and fulfillment of same. > > And how does one go about measuring it? > > Or is it one of the many promises I came across in TM that > exist as things that must be happening because that's what > I was told would happen? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Rick and navashok
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Navashok, just to say again, there is a checking for TMSP. Okay Share, just to let you know that I have seen this. I'm going out of town tomorrow, so will be back only next week, and still have to pack, and no, I am not going to Paris ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4i7vS_UO4Q > I know people who have had it. > Rick, maybe I don't get booted because I'm not a gov. Even when I was a > grad student and open about going to tantric workshops of David Deida, no one > said anything to me. EFT tapping is based on acupuncture meridian points so > I don't see how that would be objectionable. And last but not least, my > pastoral counselor has been on IAA since the beginning! Would she be if > therapy was objectionable?! > > > > > > From: Rick Archer > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:21 AM > Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael > > >  >  > From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On > Behalf Of Share Long > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:32 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael >  >  > There ABSOLUTELY is a checking for TMSP. I know of people who have had it. > Does that change your idea that the mantra theory is nonsense? >  > Speaking as someone who has done therapy and energy work over the years, > including EFT tapping, I would say this: TM is necessary for emotional and > energetic healing. But it is not sufficient for someone who may have major > trauma especially from early childhood. I think TM developed my wisdom and > common sense to the point that I sought out other modalities. And I would > say this to anyone in the TMO. >  > Actually I think it's proof that TM is not a cult, the fact that someone like > me goes to the Dome every day twice a day and wisely seeks out whatever > healing modalities I think I need. >  > I donât know about current policies, but in the past people have been > booted out of the dome or kept off courses for doing that. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > Actually I think it's proof that TM is not a cult, the fact that someone like > me goes to the Dome every day twice a day and wisely seeks out whatever > healing modalities I think I need. > > > > I donât know about current policies, but in the past people have been > booted out of the dome or kept off courses for doing that. Never heard that one before. In fact, in the Phillippines Maharishi said everyone ought to see the "psycic surgeons" in action. You could also have a treatment if you felt you needed it. Perhaps you are refferring to an american policy Rick ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means a much shorter > distance in general between desire, and fulfillment of same. And how does one go about measuring it? Or is it one of the many promises I came across in TM that exist as things that must be happening because that's what I was told would happen?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/ > > > physical integration. > > > > Catchy little soundbite, but what does it actually mean? > > I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means > a much shorter distance in general between desire, and > fulfillment of same. How's that desire of yours to have people on this forum actually believe you're enlightened going for you? Care to put it to the test and actually ask them? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
I was confirming what Share was talking about. It means a much shorter distance in general between desire, and fulfillment of same. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/physical integration. > > Catchy little soundbite, but what does it actually mean? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/physical integration. Catchy little soundbite, but what does it actually mean?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
Another expression I enjoy for this sort of person is, "armchair quarterback", aka, "armchair general". No expertise, except the capacity to sit on their rear-ends and make stuff up they don't like, about stuff they know nothing about. Not exactly mature behavior. Yes, with practice, TMSP leads to near perfect mental/physical integration. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Doc, I was having a very similar thought in the Dome this morning: that > people who stopped doing TM and TMSP long ago have no idea, even more > importantly, no experience of what the long term effects are. And they can > be very difficult to describe. AND I'm guessing that it has something to do > with whole brain whole body functioning rather than partial brain partial > body functioning. I'm deliberately using this whole brain whole body > language rather than some other language that might be more abstract. I > remember that one goal of YF is to increase mind body coordination.   > > > > > From: "doctordumbass@..." > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:04 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > >  > snip > > TM is not the static believerism you make it out to be. You have NO IDEA > about the techniques' long term effects because you quit doing it, decades > ago. > > snip > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from > > > > > my point of view, falling prey to one of the most > > > > > chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were > > > > > TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- > > > > > as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, > > > > > Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so > > > > > strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along > > > > > without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base > > > > > other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth > > > > > of the assumptions was a given. > > > > > > > > Now that's something I noticed, that the theories and the > > > > mindset created continues way after a person actually > > > > leaves TM. If you were let's say 10 years in TM, your > > > > belief system will be influenced still decades after > > > > you left it - not all of the beliefs, but enough for you > > > > to still uncover it, if you are interested in it. > > > > > > And if you are interested in challenging their supposed > > > truth or value. In my experience, it's these "core" or > > > *never challenged* beliefs that persist the longest, and > > > are toughest to either recognize or challenge. Stuff like > > > *assuming* that "effortless is better," or that "the only > > > way to transcend is via effortlessness." People have been > > > repeating that meme for so long -- in most cases *without > > > ever trying a technique not based on effortlessness to > > > see if it's really true* -- that they no longer realize > > > that it's a fundamental belief that underlies and shapes > > > all other beliefs they have about meditation in general, > > > and sometimes about life itself. > > > > A poignant example of this, related to me by at least > > half a different spiritual teachers from traditions > > other than TM, has to do with what long-term TMers > > come to their public introductory talks. Often a tech- > > nique of meditation is taught, and of course they sit > > there and look as if they're trying it, just like > > everyone else in the audience. > > > > But all of these teachers have related the same story > > to me. Some of these TMers actually come up to them > > later and ask to meet with them privately, because > > they're interested in attending more talks, or study- > > ing with them, often because they liked the overall > > energy of the group or of the teacher, or liked the > > things he or she talked about. > > > > What these teachers have learned to do, out of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Thank you, Navashok! > > You post has actually answered my questions about mantras. In my opinion, the fact that there is no sort of checking for sidhis means the idea that the meaningless sound theory of the mantras is nonsense and that as you said the entire checking procedure is a form of auto-suggestion - that explains it very well, and so we see that there is nothing, neither the mantras themselves nor the instructions on how to use them that makes TM better than any other meditation. > > Also, you are absolutely right in saying that the mind set we got from TM persists for decades - I have found this to be true for myself in the past year, subtle things I was not aware of for years. > > Also I will add that Buck made me think of something with his mention of the many healers and other spiritual practitioners in Fairfield. If TM is so yummy and so effective and we all know that official party TM line is that TM is all we need, then why do so many tried and true TM'ers go to these folks? Seems like TM would be all they would need. Hmmm. Gotta agree with you on that one Michael. I have been wondering that for a while now but I have my theories and won't bore anyone with them right now. > > > > > > From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 7:24 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > Â > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: > > > > > > > > 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if > > > > there are any, in his mind); > > > > > > > > 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; > > > > > > Since TM mantras are for householders, are there mantras > > > for gays and lesbians as well? > > > > More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to > > Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and > > thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, > > were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" > > recluse mantra? > > Actually, even those who got the 'monks technique', they didn't get OM, so it's a bluff. The so-called 'no-mantra-for-householders' is only a cover-up for the brahmanical no to any vedic mantra for lower castes, especially women. > > > If they were not, I suspect we have the reason why > > the person held up to represent the epitome of > > Purusha life for so long -- King Tony -- turned > > out to have been secretly married with children the > > whole time. He was meditating with a "householder > > mantra." :-) > > > > Just poking fun, because unlike many here, I do not > > believe in the magical Woo Woo properties of mantras, > > period -- the TM kind or any other. They're just words, > > and have no power or attributes other than those we > > project onto them. I know from experience that one > > can meditate -- and transcend, into long periods of > > thoughtless samadhi -- on mantras other than those > > used in TM, on ordinary words chosen at random, and > > using no mantra at all. > > Well, I wouldn't want to meditate on a word like 'Phat',because I imagine there is a phonetic quality not being woo woo. Om, or Ah are resounding mantras, they could just go on in your mind, why phat is used for stopping in Tantra. It does seem to have this phonetic quality. OTOH, I have used many non sanskrit mantras, for example Hebrew words, or the most clear example are the Siddhis, which are simply English words, Inner Light for example. So, all of the TM logic about why TM is so effective, that its a word without meaning, that it has a special sound quality, goes out of the window when it comes to Siddhis. They have meaning, which is obviously important, as they are translated to the local languages. And everybody here will claim that they work just well and deepen the experience of TM. > > Btw. where is the checking procedure of the siddhis? You know the checking procedure has the sense to ensure the correct effortless TM, why isn't there a similar procedure for the siddhis? The siddhis are much more complex, you have to think the words in intervals, you have to remember a whole bunch of them etc. This shows to me, that the whole checking procedure is indeed a (light) form of hypnosis / auto-suggestion. That's
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Rick and navashok
Navashok, just to say again, there is a checking for TMSP. I know people who have had it. Rick, maybe I don't get booted because I'm not a gov. Even when I was a grad student and open about going to tantric workshops of David Deida, no one said anything to me. EFT tapping is based on acupuncture meridian points so I don't see how that would be objectionable. And last but not least, my pastoral counselor has been on IAA since the beginning! Would she be if therapy was objectionable?! From: Rick Archer To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:21 AM Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Share Long Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:32 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael There ABSOLUTELY is a checking for TMSP. I know of people who have had it. Does that change your idea that the mantra theory is nonsense? Speaking as someone who has done therapy and energy work over the years, including EFT tapping, I would say this: TM is necessary for emotional and energetic healing. But it is not sufficient for someone who may have major trauma especially from early childhood. I think TM developed my wisdom and common sense to the point that I sought out other modalities. And I would say this to anyone in the TMO. Actually I think it's proof that TM is not a cult, the fact that someone like me goes to the Dome every day twice a day and wisely seeks out whatever healing modalities I think I need. I don’t know about current policies, but in the past people have been booted out of the dome or kept off courses for doing that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
On 03/06/2013 05:50 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from my point of view, falling prey to one of the most chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth of the assumptions was a given. >>> Now that's something I noticed, that the theories and the >>> mindset created continues way after a person actually >>> leaves TM. If you were let's say 10 years in TM, your >>> belief system will be influenced still decades after >>> you left it - not all of the beliefs, but enough for you >>> to still uncover it, if you are interested in it. >> And if you are interested in challenging their supposed >> truth or value. In my experience, it's these "core" or >> *never challenged* beliefs that persist the longest, and >> are toughest to either recognize or challenge. Stuff like >> *assuming* that "effortless is better," or that "the only >> way to transcend is via effortlessness." People have been >> repeating that meme for so long -- in most cases *without >> ever trying a technique not based on effortlessness to >> see if it's really true* -- that they no longer realize >> that it's a fundamental belief that underlies and shapes >> all other beliefs they have about meditation in general, >> and sometimes about life itself. > A poignant example of this, related to me by at least > half a different spiritual teachers from traditions > other than TM, has to do with what long-term TMers > come to their public introductory talks. Often a tech- > nique of meditation is taught, and of course they sit > there and look as if they're trying it, just like > everyone else in the audience. > > But all of these teachers have related the same story > to me. Some of these TMers actually come up to them > later and ask to meet with them privately, because > they're interested in attending more talks, or study- > ing with them, often because they liked the overall > energy of the group or of the teacher, or liked the > things he or she talked about. > > What these teachers have learned to do, out of long > experience, is to ask the former TMers, "When we > practiced the meditation I was teaching, did you > actually *try* it, or did you sit there doing TM? > Be scrupulously honest now." > > In *most* cases, when dealing with former TMers, they > admit that they never *did* try the new technique of > meditation. Some admit that some part of them still > felt "guilty" about trying it, as if doing so were > somehow "wrong" or "sinful," and others admitted to > not having tried it because "they already knew how > to meditate." > > Most of these teachers at this point asked the person > applying to study with them to go away, and return > when they had regained the ability to achieve > "Beginner's Mind," and approach a new study with > humility, and not with arrogance. Few ever did. Well we are probably seeing an attempt to turn TM into a religion now that the leader is gone. Throughout history this is how religions got born from some spiritual teaching. The most zealous yet uninformed followers try to turn the teachings into a religion. We have David Lynch trying to perform CPR on a dying movement. It's all quite a melodrama or even a comedy. Actually MMY's scheme means "if TM doesn't work for you try something else." That's actually a traditional Indian way of teaching. People need to find what works for them not what works for some small group of people to make money.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Share Long Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:32 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael There ABSOLUTELY is a checking for TMSP. I know of people who have had it. Does that change your idea that the mantra theory is nonsense? Speaking as someone who has done therapy and energy work over the years, including EFT tapping, I would say this: TM is necessary for emotional and energetic healing. But it is not sufficient for someone who may have major trauma especially from early childhood. I think TM developed my wisdom and common sense to the point that I sought out other modalities. And I would say this to anyone in the TMO. Actually I think it's proof that TM is not a cult, the fact that someone like me goes to the Dome every day twice a day and wisely seeks out whatever healing modalities I think I need. I don’t know about current policies, but in the past people have been booted out of the dome or kept off courses for doing that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
That's quite an insight regarding 'tricking our ego'. I remember Das Goravani explaining the importance of ego, despite its contradiction to spirituality. If you are a young soul, undeveloped and inexperienced, it is much better to have an enormous ego. It is your ego that impels you to identify with certain experiences. By identifying with those experiences, your consciousness aqcuires all the traits required for real spirituality. For example, if someone's ego identifies with being educated, then they're impelled to go to college and become intelligent. If they identify with a religous path, they will be involved and will acquire wisdom. If you identify with making money, you get involved with employment and your consciousness is forced to acquire discipline. After many lifetimes, we acquire enough patience, discipline, intelligence, and unboundedness to actually achieve the ultimate aim of spirituality. Then, AND ONLY THEN, should the ego be obliterated. Then you can participate in life naturally, instead of 'incentive-based'. But until all the basic traits are permanently developed, trying to destroy or diminish our ego simply reduces the activities we're interested in. This results in nothing more than wasted lifetimes of little or no learning because it will cause a person to view life as this boring, meaningless, drab existence with no purpose. It's not until we're at the peak of our development that learning how to tone down the ego is supposed to be a good idea. Imagine if we never put stickers or smiley faces on our childrens graded papers? No honor rolls, no trophies, no recognition? The ego is important, but outlives its purpose at some point. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > I've also heard that a true master tricks our ego so that we get onto a > spiritual path. I was tricked into thinking I'd fulfill all my desires. > Putting all this together, we're not meant to GET anything, even > enlightenment by being on a spiritual path. Or even by being alive. We're > simply meant to be. More and more being. But Xeno would probably say that > that's simply another hypothetical concept.   > > > > > > From: seekliberation > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 7:28 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > >More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to > >Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and > >thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, > >were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" > >recluse mantra? > > I wasn't on full-time Purusha, but I was on Prep Purusha while at MIU, and I > know people who were on Purusha. No special Mantras given for either, and I > had friends on full time Purusha who were willing to tell me the truth. > > >I *know* that some people like to imbue both the > >mantras themselves and the Woo Woo of "imparting" > >them with mystical, magical attributes, and it's > >their right to believe this if they want. My personal > >experience, and the experience of thousands of others > >I've talked to suggest that such beliefs are 1) pure > >superstition, and 2) almost always a form of self- > >importance -- "My mantra is better than your mantra > >because [...fill in the blank here...]." > > I am no expert, but my opinion is that it's not so much the exact mantras > that are as important as the instruction that goes along with TM. I don't > mean to place any 'mystical' value to TM, but I do know a lot of people who > have tried other meditations. I'm convinced that some are experiencing the > same thing and some are not. Moreover, after practicing the TMSP, I started > noticing an extremely blissful outburst of energy in my solar plexus area. > It's somewhat rare, but it's like an involuntary jolt of energy. I've tried > to ask around and find out what's going on, but no answers yet. Bottom line, > there's something about TM/TMSP that's very effective for me. However, I > don't believe that it's the 'only' thing out there capable of bringing about > this experience. But it's all that was available to me for whatever karmic > reason. > > >My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from > >my point of view, falling prey to one of the most > >chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were > >TOLD -- by the people sellin
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Michael
There ABSOLUTELY is a checking for TMSP. I know of people who have had it. Does that change your idea that the mantra theory is nonsense? Speaking as someone who has done therapy and energy work over the years, including EFT tapping, I would say this: TM is necessary for emotional and energetic healing. But it is not sufficient for someone who may have major trauma especially from early childhood. I think TM developed my wisdom and common sense to the point that I sought out other modalities. And I would say this to anyone in the TMO. Actually I think it's proof that TM is not a cult, the fact that someone like me goes to the Dome every day twice a day and wisely seeks out whatever healing modalities I think I need. From: Michael Jackson To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders Thank you, Navashok! You post has actually answered my questions about mantras. In my opinion, the fact that there is no sort of checking for sidhis means the idea that the meaningless sound theory of the mantras is nonsense and that as you said the entire checking procedure is a form of auto-suggestion - that explains it very well, and so we see that there is nothing, neither the mantras themselves nor the instructions on how to use them that makes TM better than any other meditation. Also, you are absolutely right in saying that the mind set we got from TM persists for decades - I have found this to be true for myself in the past year, subtle things I was not aware of for years. Also I will add that Buck made me think of something with his mention of the many healers and other spiritual practitioners in Fairfield. If TM is so yummy and so effective and we all know that official party TM line is that TM is all we need, then why do so many tried and true TM'ers go to these folks? Seems like TM would be all they would need. Hmmm. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 7:24 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: > > > > > > 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if > > > there are any, in his mind); > > > > > > 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; > > > > Since TM mantras are for householders, are there mantras > > for gays and lesbians as well? > > More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to > Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and > thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, > were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" > recluse mantra? Actually, even those who got the 'monks technique', they didn't get OM, so it's a bluff. The so-called 'no-mantra-for-householders' is only a cover-up for the brahmanical no to any vedic mantra for lower castes, especially women. > If they were not, I suspect we have the reason why > the person held up to represent the epitome of > Purusha life for so long -- King Tony -- turned > out to have been secretly married with children the > whole time. He was meditating with a "householder > mantra." :-) > > Just poking fun, because unlike many here, I do not > believe in the magical Woo Woo properties of mantras, > period -- the TM kind or any other. They're just words, > and have no power or attributes other than those we > project onto them. I know from experience that one > can meditate -- and transcend, into long periods of > thoughtless samadhi -- on mantras other than those > used in TM, on ordinary words chosen at random, and > using no mantra at all. Well, I wouldn't want to meditate on a word like 'Phat',because I imagine there is a phonetic quality not being woo woo. Om, or Ah are resounding mantras, they could just go on in your mind, why phat is used for stopping in Tantra. It does seem to have this phonetic quality. OTOH, I have used many non sanskrit mantras, for example Hebrew words, or the most clear example are the Siddhis, which are simply English words, Inner Light for example. So, all of the TM logic about why TM is so effective, that its a word without meaning, that it has a special sound quality, goes out of the window when it comes to Siddhis. They have meaning, which is obviously important, as they are translated to the local languages. And everybody here will claim that they work just well and deepen the exp
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > you are an idiot - And you're our FFL bully. What will happen to you is the same as what happens to all bullies in time, the are left empty-handed.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Ann
Right, I think Michael mentioned 20 years. But I'm referring to people I know who have generally been at it for over 35 years. From my own experience and the experience of my long term friends, those years of practice add up exponentially. In other words, there's a noticeable difference in 20 years, 30 years and now as I approach 40 years. Again I'd postulate it has something to do especially with YF which develops mind body coordination, I think on a very fundamental level and in a very inclusive way. In other words, playing a sport probably develops mind body coordination. But I think YF does that in a more pervasive way. Like I said, it can be difficult to describe. BTW, I enjoyed your posts this morning and your question about cheerleading and your comment about tools and how different people use them differently. An advaita teacher Francis Lucille says that a sincere seeker can become enlightened, or whatever we want to call it, even if the teacher is corrupt! From: Ann To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:01 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Doc, I was having a very similar thought in the Dome this morning: that > people who stopped doing TM and TMSP long ago have no idea, even more > importantly, no experience of what the long term effects are. Not so true. Many of the people here who have stopped DID practice TM for a long time. And in addition were very involved in teaching the technique.  > And they can be very difficult to describe. AND I'm guessing that it has something to do with whole brain whole body functioning rather than partial brain partial body functioning. I'm deliberately using this whole brain whole body language rather than some other language that might be more abstract. I remember that one goal of YF is to increase mind body coordination.   > > > > > From: "doctordumbass@..." > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:04 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > >  > snip > > TM is not the static believerism you make it out to be. You have NO IDEA > about the techniques' long term effects because you quit doing it, decades > ago. > > snip > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from > > > > > my point of view, falling prey to one of the most > > > > > chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were > > > > > TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- > > > > > as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, > > > > > Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so > > > > > strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along > > > > > without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base > > > > > other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth > > > > > of the assumptions was a given. > > > > > > > > Now that's something I noticed, that the theories and the > > > > mindset created continues way after a person actually > > > > leaves TM. If you were let's say 10 years in TM, your > > > > belief system will be influenced still decades after > > > > you left it - not all of the beliefs, but enough for you > > > > to still uncover it, if you are interested in it. > > > > > > And if you are interested in challenging their supposed > > > truth or value. In my experience, it's these "core" or > > > *never challenged* beliefs that persist the longest, and > > > are toughest to either recognize or challenge. Stuff like > > > *assuming* that "effortless is better," or that "the only > > > way to transcend is via effortlessness." People have been > > > repeating that meme for so long -- in most cases *without > > > ever trying a technique not based on effortlessness to > > > see if it's really true* -- that they no longer realize > > > that it's a fundamental belief that underlies and shapes > > > all other beliefs they have about meditation in general, > > > a
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
Thank you, Navashok! You post has actually answered my questions about mantras. In my opinion, the fact that there is no sort of checking for sidhis means the idea that the meaningless sound theory of the mantras is nonsense and that as you said the entire checking procedure is a form of auto-suggestion - that explains it very well, and so we see that there is nothing, neither the mantras themselves nor the instructions on how to use them that makes TM better than any other meditation. Also, you are absolutely right in saying that the mind set we got from TM persists for decades - I have found this to be true for myself in the past year, subtle things I was not aware of for years. Also I will add that Buck made me think of something with his mention of the many healers and other spiritual practitioners in Fairfield. If TM is so yummy and so effective and we all know that official party TM line is that TM is all we need, then why do so many tried and true TM'ers go to these folks? Seems like TM would be all they would need. Hmmm. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 7:24 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: > > > > > > 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if > > > there are any, in his mind); > > > > > > 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; > > > > Since TM mantras are for householders, are there mantras > > for gays and lesbians as well? > > More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to > Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and > thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, > were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" > recluse mantra? Actually, even those who got the 'monks technique', they didn't get OM, so it's a bluff. The so-called 'no-mantra-for-householders' is only a cover-up for the brahmanical no to any vedic mantra for lower castes, especially women. > If they were not, I suspect we have the reason why > the person held up to represent the epitome of > Purusha life for so long -- King Tony -- turned > out to have been secretly married with children the > whole time. He was meditating with a "householder > mantra." :-) > > Just poking fun, because unlike many here, I do not > believe in the magical Woo Woo properties of mantras, > period -- the TM kind or any other. They're just words, > and have no power or attributes other than those we > project onto them. I know from experience that one > can meditate -- and transcend, into long periods of > thoughtless samadhi -- on mantras other than those > used in TM, on ordinary words chosen at random, and > using no mantra at all. Well, I wouldn't want to meditate on a word like 'Phat',because I imagine there is a phonetic quality not being woo woo. Om, or Ah are resounding mantras, they could just go on in your mind, why phat is used for stopping in Tantra. It does seem to have this phonetic quality. OTOH, I have used many non sanskrit mantras, for example Hebrew words, or the most clear example are the Siddhis, which are simply English words, Inner Light for example. So, all of the TM logic about why TM is so effective, that its a word without meaning, that it has a special sound quality, goes out of the window when it comes to Siddhis. They have meaning, which is obviously important, as they are translated to the local languages. And everybody here will claim that they work just well and deepen the experience of TM. Btw. where is the checking procedure of the siddhis? You know the checking procedure has the sense to ensure the correct effortless TM, why isn't there a similar procedure for the siddhis? The siddhis are much more complex, you have to think the words in intervals, you have to remember a whole bunch of them etc. This shows to me, that the whole checking procedure is indeed a (light) form of hypnosis / auto-suggestion. That's why it feels so good, because you get into some passive kind of guided procedure. > This leads me to believe that all the Woo Woo TM > emphasis on mantras was just marketing hoopla, a way > at first to make people feel unique and special > because their mantra was chosen "especially for them," > and not based on some simplistic formula like, say, > one's age. After all, when he first started teaching > TM, didn't Maharishi prescribe the same mantra -- Ram -- &
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to navashok
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Hi navashok, I appreciate the points you make to Ann. Even when I was growing up, I played sports and was into Catholicism. And both these proclivities, love of activity and love of spirituality have continued throughout my life. That is, the BOTH are natural to me. To paraphrase Xeno, at some point, the inner and the outer, if we can call them that, are no longer experienced as two things. It's more like a continuum. I think a lot of long term TMers experience this in their daily householder lives. And I think it is one of Maharishi's gifts to the world: the idea that even a householder or even a woman, can engage in spiritual practice. At some point the whole ACTIVE life becomes a spiritual practice, but ordinary and spontaneous. This is based on my experience, not something anyone said.    Exactly my point and my experience. For me, TM was not responsible for this in my life though. Living was responsible and all of the slings and arrows and sorrows and joys and losses pummel you down until you either shut down or open up. Luckily, it was the latter for me. I have been transformed a few times in my life, not through meditation, but through being destroyed. > > > > > > From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:49 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > All I know is this: > > > > > > I am not a meditator by nature. I like to do things, run around, play, get dirty, eat, be competitive at sports, read. The list goes on. What I believe MMY was brilliant at was to appeal to others like me, those not particularly spiritual or monkish by nature, not given to strolling off into some hidden cave or ashram or to spend long hours in intense contemplative or prolonged meditative states. I am just Jo Anybody, Amy Average who wants to have a good time, not hurt anyone, live comfortably. > > > > > > I also want to 'improve' myself, deepen myself, discover mysteries about myself, others, the world. But I don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time sitting on my butt, isolated with my eyes closed. And neither do the majority of the population in the Western World and perhaps everywhere else. And here is my point, MMY was a master at making a simple technique available and easily practiced by people like myself. He opened up a world of potential transcendence for a whole lot of people who would most likely have spent 40 minutes a day watching TV or chatting with friends on the phone instead. He created a technique that people believed would be beneficial and doable. > > > > > > I meditated from the age of 14 until I was about 30 years old. I attended and graduated from MIU. I had two sisters who were initiators. But my engagement with the Movement basically ended in 1980 when I graduated. I was spared the Rajas, the indignities of being on staff. I didn't invest years and years of my life as an initiator or Governor. I don't have any regrets or hold grudges with respect to my time doing TM and being at MIU. We all took our own ride, trod our individual paths. But no one can deny, at least, that Maharishi brought the concept and the practice of using a mantra to transcend to a huge amount of 'ordinary' householders and I don't think this has harmed the planet. At worst it accomplished nothing and at best it gave many the opportunity to deepen their awareness and explore something other than the ordinariness of everyday life. > > > > > > > > This is a very nice account Ann. A nice personal account as well, I always wanted to ask, if you actually ever did do TM, so thanks for it. Also I could wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion of what the contribution of Maharishi was. > > > > As you said it, it was to make meditation accessible to people who would not already feel a natural affinity to any of these topics, meditation, enlightenment, spirituality etc. like myself for example. > > 'Like myself' meaning, I'm the opposite of you. Well, I do run, I do sports and am very active, but I have a natural inclination towards mediation. When I started meditation, my grandma said: Oh he was always like this. > > > But what I wonder, if meditation was so good, and if spreading meditation was such a good and important thing, then why don't you practice it anymore? What I mean to say is, that your natural temperament, your natural inclination finally one anyway. You didn't have the meditation that would really finally have convinced you. So, despite of the fact that you are actually making a good case for TM, your own example contradicts it. > > > The above should read: > > "your natural temperament, your natural inclination finally WON anyway" >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Doc, I was having a very similar thought in the Dome this morning: that > people who stopped doing TM and TMSP long ago have no idea, even more > importantly, no experience of what the long term effects are. Not so true. Many of the people here who have stopped DID practice TM for a long time. And in addition were very involved in teaching the technique.  > And they can be very difficult to describe. AND I'm guessing that it has something to do with whole brain whole body functioning rather than partial brain partial body functioning. I'm deliberately using this whole brain whole body language rather than some other language that might be more abstract. I remember that one goal of YF is to increase mind body coordination.   > > > > > From: "doctordumbass@..." > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:04 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > >  > snip > > TM is not the static believerism you make it out to be. You have NO IDEA > about the techniques' long term effects because you quit doing it, decades > ago. > > snip > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from > > > > > my point of view, falling prey to one of the most > > > > > chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were > > > > > TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- > > > > > as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, > > > > > Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so > > > > > strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along > > > > > without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base > > > > > other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth > > > > > of the assumptions was a given. > > > > > > > > Now that's something I noticed, that the theories and the > > > > mindset created continues way after a person actually > > > > leaves TM. If you were let's say 10 years in TM, your > > > > belief system will be influenced still decades after > > > > you left it - not all of the beliefs, but enough for you > > > > to still uncover it, if you are interested in it. > > > > > > And if you are interested in challenging their supposed > > > truth or value. In my experience, it's these "core" or > > > *never challenged* beliefs that persist the longest, and > > > are toughest to either recognize or challenge. Stuff like > > > *assuming* that "effortless is better," or that "the only > > > way to transcend is via effortlessness." People have been > > > repeating that meme for so long -- in most cases *without > > > ever trying a technique not based on effortlessness to > > > see if it's really true* -- that they no longer realize > > > that it's a fundamental belief that underlies and shapes > > > all other beliefs they have about meditation in general, > > > and sometimes about life itself. > > > > A poignant example of this, related to me by at least > > half a different spiritual teachers from traditions > > other than TM, has to do with what long-term TMers > > come to their public introductory talks. Often a tech- > > nique of meditation is taught, and of course they sit > > there and look as if they're trying it, just like > > everyone else in the audience. > > > > But all of these teachers have related the same story > > to me. Some of these TMers actually come up to them > > later and ask to meet with them privately, because > > they're interested in attending more talks, or study- > > ing with them, often because they liked the overall > > energy of the group or of the teacher, or liked the > > things he or she talked about. > > > > What these teachers have learned to do, out of long > > experience, is to ask the former TMers, "When we > > practiced the meditation I was teaching, did you > > actually *try* it, or did you sit there doing TM? > > Be scrupulously honest now." > > &g
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
I agree, seekliberation: nobody owes us anything. Least of all a spiritual teacher or a spiritual path. Meaning IMO that a spiritual teacher doesn't owe it to us to be any certain way that makes us feel comfy. Paraphrasing Adyashanti who says that humans have 2 impulses, one for comfort and feeling good which might get us off a spiritual path. And another impulse for discovering and living the truth of what we are which might not be so comfy and good feeling. Each of us draws the line in regards to this. For example, as said before, I draw the line at physical violence or the threat of it. But having drawn a line and made a choice it's healthy to accept the consequences for doing so. I've also heard that a true master tricks our ego so that we get onto a spiritual path. I was tricked into thinking I'd fulfill all my desires. Putting all this together, we're not meant to GET anything, even enlightenment by being on a spiritual path. Or even by being alive. We're simply meant to be. More and more being. But Xeno would probably say that that's simply another hypothetical concept. From: seekliberation To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 7:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: >More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to >Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and >thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, >were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" >recluse mantra? I wasn't on full-time Purusha, but I was on Prep Purusha while at MIU, and I know people who were on Purusha. No special Mantras given for either, and I had friends on full time Purusha who were willing to tell me the truth. >I *know* that some people like to imbue both the >mantras themselves and the Woo Woo of "imparting" >them with mystical, magical attributes, and it's >their right to believe this if they want. My personal >experience, and the experience of thousands of others >I've talked to suggest that such beliefs are 1) pure >superstition, and 2) almost always a form of self- >importance -- "My mantra is better than your mantra >because [...fill in the blank here...]." I am no expert, but my opinion is that it's not so much the exact mantras that are as important as the instruction that goes along with TM. I don't mean to place any 'mystical' value to TM, but I do know a lot of people who have tried other meditations. I'm convinced that some are experiencing the same thing and some are not. Moreover, after practicing the TMSP, I started noticing an extremely blissful outburst of energy in my solar plexus area. It's somewhat rare, but it's like an involuntary jolt of energy. I've tried to ask around and find out what's going on, but no answers yet. Bottom line, there's something about TM/TMSP that's very effective for me. However, I don't believe that it's the 'only' thing out there capable of bringing about this experience. But it's all that was available to me for whatever karmic reason. >My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from >my point of view, falling prey to one of the most >chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were >TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- >as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, >Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so >strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along >without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base >other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth >of the assumptions was a given. An example is the parroting in this >thread of >"the TM mantras are for householders." How do you KNOW >this,those of you who >have been repeating it so mindlessly? >Simple, you "know" it only because it was TOLD to you, >and you've bought what you were TOLD so effectively >that for you it's become a kind of core belief, a >baseline truth than *can*, and in fact *must* be >assumed. But the only real truth in this equation >is that you have no reason to believe this other than >the fact that it was TOLD to you by the person selling >you the technique you learned, and you just bought it >at the time and now keep repeating it as if this >phrase itself were some kind of holy mantra. This almost reminds me of an argument I got into with a devoted TM Governer (which he did not like to hear). I explained how odd it is that we gave so much faith that MMY is 1. Enlightened, 2. A Vedic Scholar (World's Foremost according to Hagelin & Morris), and 3. Seems to be accepted as 'all-knowing'
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to Doc
Doc, I was having a very similar thought in the Dome this morning: that people who stopped doing TM and TMSP long ago have no idea, even more importantly, no experience of what the long term effects are. And they can be very difficult to describe. AND I'm guessing that it has something to do with whole brain whole body functioning rather than partial brain partial body functioning. I'm deliberately using this whole brain whole body language rather than some other language that might be more abstract. I remember that one goal of YF is to increase mind body coordination. From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:04 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders snip TM is not the static believerism you make it out to be. You have NO IDEA about the techniques' long term effects because you quit doing it, decades ago. snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from > > > > my point of view, falling prey to one of the most > > > > chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were > > > > TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- > > > > as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, > > > > Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so > > > > strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along > > > > without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base > > > > other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth > > > > of the assumptions was a given. > > > > > > Now that's something I noticed, that the theories and the > > > mindset created continues way after a person actually > > > leaves TM. If you were let's say 10 years in TM, your > > > belief system will be influenced still decades after > > > you left it - not all of the beliefs, but enough for you > > > to still uncover it, if you are interested in it. > > > > And if you are interested in challenging their supposed > > truth or value. In my experience, it's these "core" or > > *never challenged* beliefs that persist the longest, and > > are toughest to either recognize or challenge. Stuff like > > *assuming* that "effortless is better," or that "the only > > way to transcend is via effortlessness." People have been > > repeating that meme for so long -- in most cases *without > > ever trying a technique not based on effortlessness to > > see if it's really true* -- that they no longer realize > > that it's a fundamental belief that underlies and shapes > > all other beliefs they have about meditation in general, > > and sometimes about life itself. > > A poignant example of this, related to me by at least > half a different spiritual teachers from traditions > other than TM, has to do with what long-term TMers > come to their public introductory talks. Often a tech- > nique of meditation is taught, and of course they sit > there and look as if they're trying it, just like > everyone else in the audience. > > But all of these teachers have related the same story > to me. Some of these TMers actually come up to them > later and ask to meet with them privately, because > they're interested in attending more talks, or study- > ing with them, often because they liked the overall > energy of the group or of the teacher, or liked the > things he or she talked about. > > What these teachers have learned to do, out of long > experience, is to ask the former TMers, "When we > practiced the meditation I was teaching, did you > actually *try* it, or did you sit there doing TM? > Be scrupulously honest now." > > In *most* cases, when dealing with former TMers, they > admit that they never *did* try the new technique of > meditation. Some admit that some part of them still > felt "guilty" about trying it, as if doing so were > somehow "wrong" or "sinful," and others admitted to > not having tried it because "they already knew how > to meditate." > > Most of these teachers at this point asked the person > applying to study with them to go away, and return > when they had regained the ability to achieve > "Beginner's Mind," and approach a ne
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to navashok
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Hi navashok, I appreciate the points you make to Ann. Even when I was > growing up, I played sports and was into Catholicism. And both these > proclivities, love of activity and love of spirituality have continued > throughout my life. That is, the BOTH are natural to me. To paraphrase > Xeno, at some point, the inner and the outer, if we can call them that, are > no longer experienced as two things. It's more like a continuum. I think > a lot of long term TMers experience this in their daily householder lives. > And I think it is one of Maharishi's gifts to the world: the idea that even > a householder or even a woman, can engage in spiritual practice. At some > point the whole ACTIVE life becomes a spiritual practice, but ordinary and > spontaneous. This is based on my experience, not something anyone said.  >   > > > > > > From: navashok > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:49 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > All I know is this: > > > > > > I am not a meditator by nature. I like to do things, run around, play, > > > get dirty, eat, be competitive at sports, read. The list goes on. What I > > > believe MMY was brilliant at was to appeal to others like me, those not > > > particularly spiritual or monkish by nature, not given to strolling off > > > into some hidden cave or ashram or to spend long hours in intense > > > contemplative or prolonged meditative states. I am just Jo Anybody, Amy > > > Average who wants to have a good time, not hurt anyone, live comfortably. > > > > > > I also want to 'improve' myself, deepen myself, discover mysteries about > > > myself, others, the world. But I don't want to spend an inordinate amount > > > of time sitting on my butt, isolated with my eyes closed. And neither do > > > the majority of the population in the Western World and perhaps > > > everywhere else. And here is my point, MMY was a master at making a > > > simple technique available and easily practiced by people like myself. He > > > opened up a world of potential transcendence for a whole lot of people > > > who would most likely have spent 40 minutes a day watching TV or chatting > > > with friends on the phone instead. He created a technique that people > > > believed would be beneficial and doable. > > > > > > I meditated from the age of 14 until I was about 30 years old. I attended > > > and graduated from MIU. I had two sisters who were initiators. But my > > > engagement with the Movement basically ended in 1980 when I graduated. I > > > was spared the Rajas, the indignities of being on staff. I didn't invest > > > years and years of my life as an initiator or Governor. I don't have any > > > regrets or hold grudges with respect to my time doing TM and being at > > > MIU. We all took our own ride, trod our individual paths. But no one can > > > deny, at least, that Maharishi brought the concept and the practice of > > > using a mantra to transcend to a huge amount of 'ordinary' householders > > > and I don't think this has harmed the planet. At worst it accomplished > > > nothing and at best it gave many the opportunity to deepen their > > > awareness and explore something other than the ordinariness of everyday > > > life. > > > > > > > > This is a very nice account Ann. A nice personal account as well, I always > > wanted to ask, if you actually ever did do TM, so thanks for it. Also I > > could wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion of what the contribution of > > Maharishi was. > > > > As you said it, it was to make meditation accessible to people who would > > not already feel a natural affinity to any of these topics, meditation, > > enlightenment, spirituality etc. like myself for example. > > 'Like myself' meaning, I'm the opposite of you. Well, I do run, I do sports > and am very active, but I have a natural inclination towards mediation. When > I started meditation, my grandma said: Oh he was always like this. > > > But what I wonder, if meditation was so good, and if spreading meditation > > was such a good and important thing,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
you are an idiot - I did TM for 20 years, twice a day, every day - it took me that long to realize it wasn't the only game in town - stupid me. From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 9:04 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders The only people I see repeating what they were TOLD are you and MJ, repeating over and over again, what you TELL yourselves. The thing you haven't recognized about TM, *since you don't do it*, is that the practice keeps you moving. TM is not the static believerism you make it out to be. You have NO IDEA about the techniques' long term effects because you quit doing it, decades ago. So you can fart into the wind all you like, exhorting us all about what TM is and isn't. But you are nothing but a quitter sitting on the sidelines bitching about it, in my humble opinion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from > > > > my point of view, falling prey to one of the most > > > > chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were > > > > TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- > > > > as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, > > > > Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so > > > > strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along > > > > without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base > > > > other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth > > > > of the assumptions was a given. > > > > > > Now that's something I noticed, that the theories and the > > > mindset created continues way after a person actually > > > leaves TM. If you were let's say 10 years in TM, your > > > belief system will be influenced still decades after > > > you left it - not all of the beliefs, but enough for you > > > to still uncover it, if you are interested in it. > > > > And if you are interested in challenging their supposed > > truth or value. In my experience, it's these "core" or > > *never challenged* beliefs that persist the longest, and > > are toughest to either recognize or challenge. Stuff like > > *assuming* that "effortless is better," or that "the only > > way to transcend is via effortlessness." People have been > > repeating that meme for so long -- in most cases *without > > ever trying a technique not based on effortlessness to > > see if it's really true* -- that they no longer realize > > that it's a fundamental belief that underlies and shapes > > all other beliefs they have about meditation in general, > > and sometimes about life itself. > > A poignant example of this, related to me by at least > half a different spiritual teachers from traditions > other than TM, has to do with what long-term TMers > come to their public introductory talks. Often a tech- > nique of meditation is taught, and of course they sit > there and look as if they're trying it, just like > everyone else in the audience. > > But all of these teachers have related the same story > to me. Some of these TMers actually come up to them > later and ask to meet with them privately, because > they're interested in attending more talks, or study- > ing with them, often because they liked the overall > energy of the group or of the teacher, or liked the > things he or she talked about. > > What these teachers have learned to do, out of long > experience, is to ask the former TMers, "When we > practiced the meditation I was teaching, did you > actually *try* it, or did you sit there doing TM? > Be scrupulously honest now." > > In *most* cases, when dealing with former TMers, they > admit that they never *did* try the new technique of > meditation. Some admit that some part of them still > felt "guilty" about trying it, as if doing so were > somehow "wrong" or "sinful," and others admitted to > not having tried it because "they already knew how > to meditate." > > Most of these teachers at this point asked the person > applying to study with them to go away, and return > when they had regained the ability to achieve > "Beginner's Mind," and approach a new study with > humi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
"A poignant example of this, related to me by at least half a different spiritual teachers from traditions other than TM..." *How* many??
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
I agree with just about everything you say here, except that Marshy had no guru competition, there were a bunch of 'em (http://www.pluralism.org/ocg/CDROM_files/hinduism/rush_of_gurus.php) What they didn't have that Marshy DID have was the tremendous flood of free publicity he received from his association with the Beatles - if not for that, he would have been relegated to the dust bin of wannabe gurujis, competing on an equal level with the likes of Kriyananda and and Muktananda, maybe they could have swapped female followers for a little spicy guru support of each others proclivities. From: seekliberation To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: >More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to >Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and >thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, >were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" >recluse mantra? I wasn't on full-time Purusha, but I was on Prep Purusha while at MIU, and I know people who were on Purusha. No special Mantras given for either, and I had friends on full time Purusha who were willing to tell me the truth. >I *know* that some people like to imbue both the >mantras themselves and the Woo Woo of "imparting" >them with mystical, magical attributes, and it's >their right to believe this if they want. My personal >experience, and the experience of thousands of others >I've talked to suggest that such beliefs are 1) pure >superstition, and 2) almost always a form of self- >importance -- "My mantra is better than your mantra >because [...fill in the blank here...]." I am no expert, but my opinion is that it's not so much the exact mantras that are as important as the instruction that goes along with TM. I don't mean to place any 'mystical' value to TM, but I do know a lot of people who have tried other meditations. I'm convinced that some are experiencing the same thing and some are not. Moreover, after practicing the TMSP, I started noticing an extremely blissful outburst of energy in my solar plexus area. It's somewhat rare, but it's like an involuntary jolt of energy. I've tried to ask around and find out what's going on, but no answers yet. Bottom line, there's something about TM/TMSP that's very effective for me. However, I don't believe that it's the 'only' thing out there capable of bringing about this experience. But it's all that was available to me for whatever karmic reason. >My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from >my point of view, falling prey to one of the most >chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were >TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- >as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, >Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so >strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along >without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base >other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth >of the assumptions was a given. An example is the parroting in this >thread of >"the TM mantras are for householders." How do you KNOW >this,those of you who >have been repeating it so mindlessly? >Simple, you "know" it only because it was TOLD to you, >and you've bought what you were TOLD so effectively >that for you it's become a kind of core belief, a >baseline truth than *can*, and in fact *must* be >assumed. But the only real truth in this equation >is that you have no reason to believe this other than >the fact that it was TOLD to you by the person selling >you the technique you learned, and you just bought it >at the time and now keep repeating it as if this >phrase itself were some kind of holy mantra. This almost reminds me of an argument I got into with a devoted TM Governer (which he did not like to hear). I explained how odd it is that we gave so much faith that MMY is 1. Enlightened, 2. A Vedic Scholar (World's Foremost according to Hagelin & Morris), and 3. Seems to be accepted as 'all-knowing' regarding pretty much every subject that ever gets brought up. I'm not saying he's a dunce by any means. But I have serious doubts and many, many reasons to justify an argument that all 3 of those assumptions that many meditators/siddhas/governers have spent decades revolving their lives around are blatantly incorrect. I went on to explain that I could demonstrate and teach people with no martial arts experience whatsoever a few basic choke holds and counter-attacks that are extremely effective. It would give students
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: > > > > > > > > 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if > > > > there are any, in his mind); > > > > > > > > 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; > > > > > > Since TM mantras are for householders, are there mantras > > > for gays and lesbians as well? > > > > More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to > > Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and > > thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, > > were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" > > recluse mantra? > > Actually, even those who got the 'monks technique', they didn't get OM, so > it's a bluff. The so-called 'no-mantra-for-householders' is only a cover-up > for the brahmanical no to any vedic mantra for lower castes, especially > women. > MMY was pretty low-caste himself, you know. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
The only people I see repeating what they were TOLD are you and MJ, repeating over and over again, what you TELL yourselves. The thing you haven't recognized about TM, *since you don't do it*, is that the practice keeps you moving. TM is not the static believerism you make it out to be. You have NO IDEA about the techniques' long term effects because you quit doing it, decades ago. So you can fart into the wind all you like, exhorting us all about what TM is and isn't. But you are nothing but a quitter sitting on the sidelines bitching about it, in my humble opinion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from > > > > my point of view, falling prey to one of the most > > > > chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were > > > > TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- > > > > as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, > > > > Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so > > > > strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along > > > > without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base > > > > other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth > > > > of the assumptions was a given. > > > > > > Now that's something I noticed, that the theories and the > > > mindset created continues way after a person actually > > > leaves TM. If you were let's say 10 years in TM, your > > > belief system will be influenced still decades after > > > you left it - not all of the beliefs, but enough for you > > > to still uncover it, if you are interested in it. > > > > And if you are interested in challenging their supposed > > truth or value. In my experience, it's these "core" or > > *never challenged* beliefs that persist the longest, and > > are toughest to either recognize or challenge. Stuff like > > *assuming* that "effortless is better," or that "the only > > way to transcend is via effortlessness." People have been > > repeating that meme for so long -- in most cases *without > > ever trying a technique not based on effortlessness to > > see if it's really true* -- that they no longer realize > > that it's a fundamental belief that underlies and shapes > > all other beliefs they have about meditation in general, > > and sometimes about life itself. > > A poignant example of this, related to me by at least > half a different spiritual teachers from traditions > other than TM, has to do with what long-term TMers > come to their public introductory talks. Often a tech- > nique of meditation is taught, and of course they sit > there and look as if they're trying it, just like > everyone else in the audience. > > But all of these teachers have related the same story > to me. Some of these TMers actually come up to them > later and ask to meet with them privately, because > they're interested in attending more talks, or study- > ing with them, often because they liked the overall > energy of the group or of the teacher, or liked the > things he or she talked about. > > What these teachers have learned to do, out of long > experience, is to ask the former TMers, "When we > practiced the meditation I was teaching, did you > actually *try* it, or did you sit there doing TM? > Be scrupulously honest now." > > In *most* cases, when dealing with former TMers, they > admit that they never *did* try the new technique of > meditation. Some admit that some part of them still > felt "guilty" about trying it, as if doing so were > somehow "wrong" or "sinful," and others admitted to > not having tried it because "they already knew how > to meditate." > > Most of these teachers at this point asked the person > applying to study with them to go away, and return > when they had regained the ability to achieve > "Beginner's Mind," and approach a new study with > humility, and not with arrogance. Few ever did. > > > > If you discover that Maharishi was playing games with > > > beliefs, inventing stories to make people go along with > > > it, and then see how long it takes to get rid of it, it > > > makes you think. > > > > And it's a real *challenge*, both to identify these core > > beliefs, to challenge them when you do, and then to drop > > them if you find them not true or not valuable for you. > > This is more effort than most people who've invested for > > many years in a spiritual tradition are willing to expend. > > They pay "lip service" to having walked away, but *when* > > they walk away, they do so still carrying years of indoc- > > trination and beliefs as baggage. > > > > > But OTOH, if you REALLY transcend, if you really go ahead > > > in your experience, it will also explode most of those > > > beliefs. > > > > For some. For others, they find a way *after* the trans-
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from > > > my point of view, falling prey to one of the most > > > chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were > > > TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- > > > as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, > > > Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so > > > strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along > > > without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base > > > other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth > > > of the assumptions was a given. > > > > Now that's something I noticed, that the theories and the > > mindset created continues way after a person actually > > leaves TM. If you were let's say 10 years in TM, your > > belief system will be influenced still decades after > > you left it - not all of the beliefs, but enough for you > > to still uncover it, if you are interested in it. > > And if you are interested in challenging their supposed > truth or value. In my experience, it's these "core" or > *never challenged* beliefs that persist the longest, and > are toughest to either recognize or challenge. Stuff like > *assuming* that "effortless is better," or that "the only > way to transcend is via effortlessness." People have been > repeating that meme for so long -- in most cases *without > ever trying a technique not based on effortlessness to > see if it's really true* -- that they no longer realize > that it's a fundamental belief that underlies and shapes > all other beliefs they have about meditation in general, > and sometimes about life itself. A poignant example of this, related to me by at least half a different spiritual teachers from traditions other than TM, has to do with what long-term TMers come to their public introductory talks. Often a tech- nique of meditation is taught, and of course they sit there and look as if they're trying it, just like everyone else in the audience. But all of these teachers have related the same story to me. Some of these TMers actually come up to them later and ask to meet with them privately, because they're interested in attending more talks, or study- ing with them, often because they liked the overall energy of the group or of the teacher, or liked the things he or she talked about. What these teachers have learned to do, out of long experience, is to ask the former TMers, "When we practiced the meditation I was teaching, did you actually *try* it, or did you sit there doing TM? Be scrupulously honest now." In *most* cases, when dealing with former TMers, they admit that they never *did* try the new technique of meditation. Some admit that some part of them still felt "guilty" about trying it, as if doing so were somehow "wrong" or "sinful," and others admitted to not having tried it because "they already knew how to meditate." Most of these teachers at this point asked the person applying to study with them to go away, and return when they had regained the ability to achieve "Beginner's Mind," and approach a new study with humility, and not with arrogance. Few ever did. > > If you discover that Maharishi was playing games with > > beliefs, inventing stories to make people go along with > > it, and then see how long it takes to get rid of it, it > > makes you think. > > And it's a real *challenge*, both to identify these core > beliefs, to challenge them when you do, and then to drop > them if you find them not true or not valuable for you. > This is more effort than most people who've invested for > many years in a spiritual tradition are willing to expend. > They pay "lip service" to having walked away, but *when* > they walk away, they do so still carrying years of indoc- > trination and beliefs as baggage. > > > But OTOH, if you REALLY transcend, if you really go ahead > > in your experience, it will also explode most of those > > beliefs. > > For some. For others, they find a way *after* the trans- > cendent experience to interpret it in hindsight as > reaffirming the things they believed before. > > > That is why those who really get into a higher state of > > consciousness, usually can't stay in the movement for > > very long. The beliefs and indoctrination is for those > > without experiences. > > Can't argue with that. How you gonna keep 'em down on > the farm after they've seen Par-eee? Don't ever allow > them to see Par-eee. :-) >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
Really? I had not heard of Marshy giving out "ram" as the original TM mantra before - that is interesting. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:06 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: > > > > 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if > > there are any, in his mind); > > > > 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; > > Since TM mantras are for householders, are there mantras > for gays and lesbians as well? More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" recluse mantra? If they were not, I suspect we have the reason why the person held up to represent the epitome of Purusha life for so long -- King Tony -- turned out to have been secretly married with children the whole time. He was meditating with a "householder mantra." :-) Just poking fun, because unlike many here, I do not believe in the magical Woo Woo properties of mantras, period -- the TM kind or any other. They're just words, and have no power or attributes other than those we project onto them. I know from experience that one can meditate -- and transcend, into long periods of thoughtless samadhi -- on mantras other than those used in TM, on ordinary words chosen at random, and using no mantra at all. This leads me to believe that all the Woo Woo TM emphasis on mantras was just marketing hoopla, a way at first to make people feel unique and special because their mantra was chosen "especially for them," and not based on some simplistic formula like, say, one's age. After all, when he first started teaching TM, didn't Maharishi prescribe the same mantra -- Ram -- for everyone? Only later did he change this, and several times, such that teachers who went to TTC at different times have very different sets of mantras. I *know* that some people like to imbue both the mantras themselves and the Woo Woo of "imparting" them with mystical, magical attributes, and it's their right to believe this if they want. My personal experience, and the experience of thousands of others I've talked to suggest that such beliefs are 1) pure superstition, and 2) almost always a form of self- importance -- "My mantra is better than your mantra because [...fill in the blank here...]." My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from my point of view, falling prey to one of the most chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth of the assumptions was a given. An example is the parroting in this thread of "the TM mantras are for householders." How do you KNOW this, those of you who have been repeating it so mindlessly? Simple, you "know" it only because it was TOLD to you, and you've bought what you were TOLD so effectively that for you it's become a kind of core belief, a baseline truth than *can*, and in fact *must* be assumed. But the only real truth in this equation is that you have no reason to believe this other than the fact that it was TOLD to you by the person selling you the technique you learned, and you just bought it at the time and now keep repeating it as if this phrase itself were some kind of holy mantra. It's not. It's a *belief*, based on what someone TOLD you. I for one think that it's beneficial to keep that in mind when presenting things you were TOLD to others as if they were Truth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from > > my point of view, falling prey to one of the most > > chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were > > TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- > > as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, > > Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so > > strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along > > without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base > > other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth > > of the assumptions was a given. > > Now that's something I noticed, that the theories and the > mindset created continues way after a person actually > leaves TM. If you were let's say 10 years in TM, your > belief system will be influenced still decades after > you left it - not all of the beliefs, but enough for you > to still uncover it, if you are interested in it. And if you are interested in challenging their supposed truth or value. In my experience, it's these "core" or *never challenged* beliefs that persist the longest, and are toughest to either recognize or challenge. Stuff like *assuming* that "effortless is better," or that "the only way to transcend is via effortlessness." People have been repeating that meme for so long -- in most cases *without ever trying a technique not based on effortlessness to see if it's really true* -- that they no longer realize that it's a fundamental belief that underlies and shapes all other beliefs they have about meditation in general, and sometimes about life itself. > If you discover that Maharishi was playing games with > beliefs, inventing stories to make people go along with > it, and then see how long it takes to get rid of it, it > makes you think. And it's a real *challenge*, both to identify these core beliefs, to challenge them when you do, and then to drop them if you find them not true or not valuable for you. This is more effort than most people who've invested for many years in a spiritual tradition are willing to expend. They pay "lip service" to having walked away, but *when* they walk away, they do so still carrying years of indoc- trination and beliefs as baggage. > But OTOH, if you REALLY transcend, if you really go ahead > in your experience, it will also explode most of those > beliefs. For some. For others, they find a way *after* the trans- cendent experience to interpret it in hindsight as reaffirming the things they believed before. > That is why those who really get into a higher state of > consciousness, usually can't stay in the movement for > very long. The beliefs and indoctrination is for those > without experiences. Can't argue with that. How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Par-eee? Don't ever allow them to see Par-eee. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: >More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to >Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and >thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, >were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" >recluse mantra? I wasn't on full-time Purusha, but I was on Prep Purusha while at MIU, and I know people who were on Purusha. No special Mantras given for either, and I had friends on full time Purusha who were willing to tell me the truth. >I *know* that some people like to imbue both the >mantras themselves and the Woo Woo of "imparting" >them with mystical, magical attributes, and it's >their right to believe this if they want. My personal >experience, and the experience of thousands of others >I've talked to suggest that such beliefs are 1) pure >superstition, and 2) almost always a form of self- >importance -- "My mantra is better than your mantra >because [...fill in the blank here...]." I am no expert, but my opinion is that it's not so much the exact mantras that are as important as the instruction that goes along with TM. I don't mean to place any 'mystical' value to TM, but I do know a lot of people who have tried other meditations. I'm convinced that some are experiencing the same thing and some are not. Moreover, after practicing the TMSP, I started noticing an extremely blissful outburst of energy in my solar plexus area. It's somewhat rare, but it's like an involuntary jolt of energy. I've tried to ask around and find out what's going on, but no answers yet. Bottom line, there's something about TM/TMSP that's very effective for me. However, I don't believe that it's the 'only' thing out there capable of bringing about this experience. But it's all that was available to me for whatever karmic reason. >My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from >my point of view, falling prey to one of the most >chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were >TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- >as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, >Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so >strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along >without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base >other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth >of the assumptions was a given. An example is the parroting in this >thread of >"the TM mantras are for householders." How do you KNOW >this,those of you who >have been repeating it so mindlessly? >Simple, you "know" it only because it was TOLD to you, >and you've bought what you were TOLD so effectively >that for you it's become a kind of core belief, a >baseline truth than *can*, and in fact *must* be >assumed. But the only real truth in this equation >is that you have no reason to believe this other than >the fact that it was TOLD to you by the person selling >you the technique you learned, and you just bought it >at the time and now keep repeating it as if this >phrase itself were some kind of holy mantra. This almost reminds me of an argument I got into with a devoted TM Governer (which he did not like to hear). I explained how odd it is that we gave so much faith that MMY is 1. Enlightened, 2. A Vedic Scholar (World's Foremost according to Hagelin & Morris), and 3. Seems to be accepted as 'all-knowing' regarding pretty much every subject that ever gets brought up. I'm not saying he's a dunce by any means. But I have serious doubts and many, many reasons to justify an argument that all 3 of those assumptions that many meditators/siddhas/governers have spent decades revolving their lives around are blatantly incorrect. I went on to explain that I could demonstrate and teach people with no martial arts experience whatsoever a few basic choke holds and counter-attacks that are extremely effective. It would give students with no experience the idea that I'm some sort of martial arts master. But the reality is I can't even hold my own against a weak professional fighter, in fact not even an olympic, collegiate, or strong amateur. But because they are so inexperienced, I would look so awesome to them. But the bottom line is, if those people really want to become a great fighter, they should take a few of the moves I know and move on with their training elsewhere. I look at MMY & TM the same way. Just because MMY brought TM here and we experienced it doesn't mean it's better than everything else. Nor does it mean he's the 'only' one capable of bringing it here. Perhaps he just surpassed the apathy that many indians have, or perhaps it was just perfect timing (the 60's really were the PERFECT time for it). But here in America, we didn't really have anything to compare to TM. There was no competition, or at least if there was, it was rather weak. As I grew up and became more of a man in the last 2 decades, I really started to see a lot of childish tendencies and obvious traits of weakness in
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders to navashok
Hi navashok, I appreciate the points you make to Ann. Even when I was growing up, I played sports and was into Catholicism. And both these proclivities, love of activity and love of spirituality have continued throughout my life. That is, the BOTH are natural to me. To paraphrase Xeno, at some point, the inner and the outer, if we can call them that, are no longer experienced as two things. It's more like a continuum. I think a lot of long term TMers experience this in their daily householder lives. And I think it is one of Maharishi's gifts to the world: the idea that even a householder or even a woman, can engage in spiritual practice. At some point the whole ACTIVE life becomes a spiritual practice, but ordinary and spontaneous. This is based on my experience, not something anyone said. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:49 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > All I know is this: > > > > I am not a meditator by nature. I like to do things, run around, play, get > > dirty, eat, be competitive at sports, read. The list goes on. What I > > believe MMY was brilliant at was to appeal to others like me, those not > > particularly spiritual or monkish by nature, not given to strolling off > > into some hidden cave or ashram or to spend long hours in intense > > contemplative or prolonged meditative states. I am just Jo Anybody, Amy > > Average who wants to have a good time, not hurt anyone, live comfortably. > > > > I also want to 'improve' myself, deepen myself, discover mysteries about > > myself, others, the world. But I don't want to spend an inordinate amount > > of time sitting on my butt, isolated with my eyes closed. And neither do > > the majority of the population in the Western World and perhaps everywhere > > else. And here is my point, MMY was a master at making a simple technique > > available and easily practiced by people like myself. He opened up a world > > of potential transcendence for a whole lot of people who would most likely > > have spent 40 minutes a day watching TV or chatting with friends on the > > phone instead. He created a technique that people believed would be > > beneficial and doable. > > > > I meditated from the age of 14 until I was about 30 years old. I attended > > and graduated from MIU. I had two sisters who were initiators. But my > > engagement with the Movement basically ended in 1980 when I graduated. I > > was spared the Rajas, the indignities of being on staff. I didn't invest > > years and years of my life as an initiator or Governor. I don't have any > > regrets or hold grudges with respect to my time doing TM and being at MIU. > > We all took our own ride, trod our individual paths. But no one can deny, > > at least, that Maharishi brought the concept and the practice of using a > > mantra to transcend to a huge amount of 'ordinary' householders and I don't > > think this has harmed the planet. At worst it accomplished nothing and at > > best it gave many the opportunity to deepen their awareness and explore > > something other than the ordinariness of everyday life. > > > > > This is a very nice account Ann. A nice personal account as well, I always > wanted to ask, if you actually ever did do TM, so thanks for it. Also I could > wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion of what the contribution of > Maharishi was. > > As you said it, it was to make meditation accessible to people who would not > already feel a natural affinity to any of these topics, meditation, > enlightenment, spirituality etc. like myself for example. 'Like myself' meaning, I'm the opposite of you. Well, I do run, I do sports and am very active, but I have a natural inclination towards mediation. When I started meditation, my grandma said: Oh he was always like this. > But what I wonder, if meditation was so good, and if spreading meditation was > such a good and important thing, then why don't you practice it anymore? What > I mean to say is, that your natural temperament, your natural inclination > finally one anyway. You didn't have the meditation that would really finally > have convinced you. So, despite of the fact that you are actually making a > good case for TM, your own example contradicts it. > The above should read: "your natural temperament, your natural inclination finally WON anyway"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: > > > > > > 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if > > > there are any, in his mind); > > > > > > 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; > > > > Since TM mantras are for householders, are there mantras > > for gays and lesbians as well? > > More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to > Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and > thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, > were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" > recluse mantra? Actually, even those who got the 'monks technique', they didn't get OM, so it's a bluff. The so-called 'no-mantra-for-householders' is only a cover-up for the brahmanical no to any vedic mantra for lower castes, especially women. > If they were not, I suspect we have the reason why > the person held up to represent the epitome of > Purusha life for so long -- King Tony -- turned > out to have been secretly married with children the > whole time. He was meditating with a "householder > mantra." :-) > > Just poking fun, because unlike many here, I do not > believe in the magical Woo Woo properties of mantras, > period -- the TM kind or any other. They're just words, > and have no power or attributes other than those we > project onto them. I know from experience that one > can meditate -- and transcend, into long periods of > thoughtless samadhi -- on mantras other than those > used in TM, on ordinary words chosen at random, and > using no mantra at all. Well, I wouldn't want to meditate on a word like 'Phat',because I imagine there is a phonetic quality not being woo woo. Om, or Ah are resounding mantras, they could just go on in your mind, why phat is used for stopping in Tantra. It does seem to have this phonetic quality. OTOH, I have used many non sanskrit mantras, for example Hebrew words, or the most clear example are the Siddhis, which are simply English words, Inner Light for example. So, all of the TM logic about why TM is so effective, that its a word without meaning, that it has a special sound quality, goes out of the window when it comes to Siddhis. They have meaning, which is obviously important, as they are translated to the local languages. And everybody here will claim that they work just well and deepen the experience of TM. Btw. where is the checking procedure of the siddhis? You know the checking procedure has the sense to ensure the correct effortless TM, why isn't there a similar procedure for the siddhis? The siddhis are much more complex, you have to think the words in intervals, you have to remember a whole bunch of them etc. This shows to me, that the whole checking procedure is indeed a (light) form of hypnosis / auto-suggestion. That's why it feels so good, because you get into some passive kind of guided procedure. > This leads me to believe that all the Woo Woo TM > emphasis on mantras was just marketing hoopla, a way > at first to make people feel unique and special > because their mantra was chosen "especially for them," > and not based on some simplistic formula like, say, > one's age. After all, when he first started teaching > TM, didn't Maharishi prescribe the same mantra -- Ram -- > for everyone? Only later did he change this, and > several times, such that teachers who went to TTC at > different times have very different sets of mantras. Yep, exactly. And in most cases it returns to one mantra with the advanced techniques, all can get the same mantra. It's really only a marketing trick. Still it does it's job, but for a high price. > I *know* that some people like to imbue both the > mantras themselves and the Woo Woo of "imparting" > them with mystical, magical attributes, and it's > their right to believe this if they want. My personal > experience, and the experience of thousands of others > I've talked to suggest that such beliefs are 1) pure > superstition, and 2) almost always a form of self- > importance -- "My mantra is better than your mantra > because [...fill in the blank here...]." > > My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from > my point of view, falling prey to one of the most > chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were > TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- > as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, > Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so > strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along > without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base > other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth > of the assumptions was a given. Now that's something I noticed, that the theories and the mindset created continues way after a person actually leaves TM. If you were let's say 10 years in TM, your belief system will be influenced
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: > > > > 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if > > there are any, in his mind); > > > > 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; > > Since TM mantras are for householders, are there mantras > for gays and lesbians as well? More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" recluse mantra? If they were not, I suspect we have the reason why the person held up to represent the epitome of Purusha life for so long -- King Tony -- turned out to have been secretly married with children the whole time. He was meditating with a "householder mantra." :-) Just poking fun, because unlike many here, I do not believe in the magical Woo Woo properties of mantras, period -- the TM kind or any other. They're just words, and have no power or attributes other than those we project onto them. I know from experience that one can meditate -- and transcend, into long periods of thoughtless samadhi -- on mantras other than those used in TM, on ordinary words chosen at random, and using no mantra at all. This leads me to believe that all the Woo Woo TM emphasis on mantras was just marketing hoopla, a way at first to make people feel unique and special because their mantra was chosen "especially for them," and not based on some simplistic formula like, say, one's age. After all, when he first started teaching TM, didn't Maharishi prescribe the same mantra -- Ram -- for everyone? Only later did he change this, and several times, such that teachers who went to TTC at different times have very different sets of mantras. I *know* that some people like to imbue both the mantras themselves and the Woo Woo of "imparting" them with mystical, magical attributes, and it's their right to believe this if they want. My personal experience, and the experience of thousands of others I've talked to suggest that such beliefs are 1) pure superstition, and 2) almost always a form of self- importance -- "My mantra is better than your mantra because [...fill in the blank here...]." My point is that a lot of these discussions are, from my point of view, falling prey to one of the most chronic TM fallacies. People repeat stuff they were TOLD -- by the people selling them the technique -- as if it were not only true, but cosmically true, Gospel Truth. They consider these things Truth so strongly that they *assume* them, parrot them along without even *noticing* the assumption, and then base other, subsequent statements on them as if the Truth of the assumptions was a given. An example is the parroting in this thread of "the TM mantras are for householders." How do you KNOW this, those of you who have been repeating it so mindlessly? Simple, you "know" it only because it was TOLD to you, and you've bought what you were TOLD so effectively that for you it's become a kind of core belief, a baseline truth than *can*, and in fact *must* be assumed. But the only real truth in this equation is that you have no reason to believe this other than the fact that it was TOLD to you by the person selling you the technique you learned, and you just bought it at the time and now keep repeating it as if this phrase itself were some kind of holy mantra. It's not. It's a *belief*, based on what someone TOLD you. I for one think that it's beneficial to keep that in mind when presenting things you were TOLD to others as if they were Truth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > All I know is this: > > > > I am not a meditator by nature. I like to do things, run around, play, get > > dirty, eat, be competitive at sports, read. The list goes on. What I > > believe MMY was brilliant at was to appeal to others like me, those not > > particularly spiritual or monkish by nature, not given to strolling off > > into some hidden cave or ashram or to spend long hours in intense > > contemplative or prolonged meditative states. I am just Jo Anybody, Amy > > Average who wants to have a good time, not hurt anyone, live comfortably. > > > > I also want to 'improve' myself, deepen myself, discover mysteries about > > myself, others, the world. But I don't want to spend an inordinate amount > > of time sitting on my butt, isolated with my eyes closed. And neither do > > the majority of the population in the Western World and perhaps everywhere > > else. And here is my point, MMY was a master at making a simple technique > > available and easily practiced by people like myself. He opened up a world > > of potential transcendence for a whole lot of people who would most likely > > have spent 40 minutes a day watching TV or chatting with friends on the > > phone instead. He created a technique that people believed would be > > beneficial and doable. > > > > I meditated from the age of 14 until I was about 30 years old. I attended > > and graduated from MIU. I had two sisters who were initiators. But my > > engagement with the Movement basically ended in 1980 when I graduated. I > > was spared the Rajas, the indignities of being on staff. I didn't invest > > years and years of my life as an initiator or Governor. I don't have any > > regrets or hold grudges with respect to my time doing TM and being at MIU. > > We all took our own ride, trod our individual paths. But no one can deny, > > at least, that Maharishi brought the concept and the practice of using a > > mantra to transcend to a huge amount of 'ordinary' householders and I don't > > think this has harmed the planet. At worst it accomplished nothing and at > > best it gave many the opportunity to deepen their awareness and explore > > something other than the ordinariness of everyday life. > > > > > This is a very nice account Ann. A nice personal account as well, I always > wanted to ask, if you actually ever did do TM, so thanks for it. Also I could > wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion of what the contribution of > Maharishi was. > > As you said it, it was to make meditation accessible to people who would not > already feel a natural affinity to any of these topics, meditation, > enlightenment, spirituality etc. like myself for example. 'Like myself' meaning, I'm the opposite of you. Well, I do run, I do sports and am very active, but I have a natural inclination towards mediation. When I started meditation, my grandma said: Oh he was always like this. > But what I wonder, if meditation was so good, and if spreading meditation was > such a good and important thing, then why don't you practice it anymore? What > I mean to say is, that your natural temperament, your natural inclination > finally one anyway. You didn't have the meditation that would really finally > have convinced you. So, despite of the fact that you are actually making a > good case for TM, your own example contradicts it. > The above should read: "your natural temperament, your natural inclination finally WON anyway"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > All I know is this: > > I am not a meditator by nature. I like to do things, run around, play, get > dirty, eat, be competitive at sports, read. The list goes on. What I believe > MMY was brilliant at was to appeal to others like me, those not particularly > spiritual or monkish by nature, not given to strolling off into some hidden > cave or ashram or to spend long hours in intense contemplative or prolonged > meditative states. I am just Jo Anybody, Amy Average who wants to have a good > time, not hurt anyone, live comfortably. > > I also want to 'improve' myself, deepen myself, discover mysteries about > myself, others, the world. But I don't want to spend an inordinate amount of > time sitting on my butt, isolated with my eyes closed. And neither do the > majority of the population in the Western World and perhaps everywhere else. > And here is my point, MMY was a master at making a simple technique available > and easily practiced by people like myself. He opened up a world of potential > transcendence for a whole lot of people who would most likely have spent 40 > minutes a day watching TV or chatting with friends on the phone instead. He > created a technique that people believed would be beneficial and doable. > > I meditated from the age of 14 until I was about 30 years old. I attended and > graduated from MIU. I had two sisters who were initiators. But my engagement > with the Movement basically ended in 1980 when I graduated. I was spared the > Rajas, the indignities of being on staff. I didn't invest years and years of > my life as an initiator or Governor. I don't have any regrets or hold grudges > with respect to my time doing TM and being at MIU. We all took our own ride, > trod our individual paths. But no one can deny, at least, that Maharishi > brought the concept and the practice of using a mantra to transcend to a huge > amount of 'ordinary' householders and I don't think this has harmed the > planet. At worst it accomplished nothing and at best it gave many the > opportunity to deepen their awareness and explore something other than the > ordinariness of everyday life. > > This is a very nice account Ann. A nice personal account as well, I always wanted to ask, if you actually ever did do TM, so thanks for it. Also I could wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion of what the contribution of Maharishi was. As you said it, it was to make meditation accessible to people who would not already feel a natural affinity to any of these topics, meditation, enlightenment, spirituality etc. like myself for example. But what I wonder, if meditation was so good, and if spreading meditation was such a good and important thing, then why don't you practice it anymore? What I mean to say is, that your natural temperament, your natural inclination finally one anyway. You didn't have the meditation that would really finally have convinced you. So, despite of the fact that you are actually making a good case for TM, your own example contradicts it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: > > 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in > his mind); > > 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; Since TM mantras are for householders, are there mantras for gays and lesbians as well?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
Available in the West is what I said. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > nothing else like it available at the time??? What the hell do you think the > Indians did back then? > > > > > > From: feste37 > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 7:36 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > Â > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > Okay, not superior but better - he absolutely said many times > > > that TM was the best meditation to do. > > > > For householders, that is. > > > > > I wish some other TM teachers here would weigh in on this > > > and explain to me how the instructions which are not much > > > different than other meditations makes it better than any > > > other. > > > > I'm not a TM teacher (I did take checker training but > > never got around to being certified), but I think I > > have a pretty good handle on what it is about the > > instructions that makes such a difference. > > > > I'm going to reproduce (slightly edited) a post I made > > back in 2007: > > > > - > > The instructions for TM are designed to anticipate > > every possible way the meditator could introduce > > effort and head it off right from the start. > > > > TM teachers sometimes use the example of "Sit easily" > > at the beginning of checking. The difference between > > "Sit easily" and "Relax" is subtle but crucial. What > > does "Sit easily" mean? It's nondirective. You can't > > *try* to sit easily. But it's very likely the phrase > > will lead you to relax spontaneously. > > > > The whole rest of personal instruction and checking > > is like that, extraordinarily carefully phrased to > > lead the student not to exert any effort. > > > > The instruction is oxymoronic, in a sense. No other > > instruction we get in life tells us how to do > > something nonintentionally. Another example the > > teachers use is that if somebody tried to give > > you instructions on how to go to sleep (other than > > "Get in bed, turn out the light, close the eyes, > > and lie still"), they wouldn't work, because going > > to sleep by definition involves *not-doing*. > > > > Even the instruction "Don't exert any effort" is > > too directive--it gets you all involved in watching > > yourself to see if you're exerting effort and then > > trying to stop it, making you exert effort to stop > > exerting effort. > > > > So it's phrased differently in TM instruction. > > > > And of course the follow-up tries to catch any > > instances in which the student hasn't quite > > gotten it yet, with the same very careful > > phrasing. > > > > (Obviously the whole business is based on the > > premise that the most effective way to transcend > > is not to exert any effort, a point some disagree > > with.) > > > > Conceptually, the recognition that transcending > > should be effortless isn't unique to MMY by any > > means. But show me *any* set of instructions for > > meditation that is supposed to be effortless, and > > I'll show you where it actually either introduces > > effort or fails to head it off at the pass. > > > > What Maharishi did, IMHO, was to think deeply > > about the nature of intention, of mental effort, > > and how easy it was for instruction to lead the > > student to exert effort--and then to figure out > > how to *get around* that tendency, how to lead > > the student to *fall into* correct meditation > > rather than telling them how to "do" it. > > - > > > > Corrections, amplifications, etc., from TM teachers > > are welcome. > > > > Perfect! And one has to remember that some of the effortless forms of > meditation now available are knock-offs of TM (Chopra's for example, and > another one called Effortless Meditation), and like most knock-offs, likely > to be not as good as the original. Another thing to remember, I think, is > that MMY first introduced this technique to the West in the late 1950s and > early 1960s. There was nothing else like it available at the time. Since then > the principle of effortlessness in meditation has passed into the New Age > mind-set, so some offerings do indeed echo that principle, but it was MMY who > first brought it to people's attention, 50 years ago. It's part of his legacy. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
Judy understood what I said. ANY effort applied during meditation inhibits the process, at least in TM. Surrender, letting go, is how it works. M explained that in some techniques, people occasionally transcend because at some point they accidentally *let go* and *it* happened and they thought it was all their hard efforts that caused it. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > You are repeating TM propaganda crap, as if the only other > techniques are concentration and you know that is not true. That's not his point. The point is that *any* effort impedes transcending. Even TMers who think they're following instructions can find themselves subtly exerting effort entirely inadvertently. That's one of the main reasons for checking, to restore effortlessness. > All of you have confirmed my suspicion that no one can come > up with a logical credible reason that TM is a better or > superior or more effective meditation than any other > meditation, other than that Marshy said so. Big surprise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > nothing else like it available at the time??? What the > hell do you think the Indians did back then? Not TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It's my understanding that other Indian gurus were outraged at Maharishi for saying meditation should be easy. (snip) > From: feste37 > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 7:36 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > Perfect! And one has to remember that some of the effortless forms of > meditation now available are knock-offs of TM (Chopra's for example, and > another one called Effortless Meditation), and like most knock-offs, likely > to be not as good as the original. Another thing to remember, I think, is > that MMY first introduced this technique to the West in the late 1950s and > early 1960s. There was nothing else like it available at the time. Since then > the principle of effortlessness in meditation has passed into the New Age > mind-set, so some offerings do indeed echo that principle, but it was MMY who > first brought it to people's attention, 50 years ago. It's part of his legacy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > yeah well that's part of the problem, putting your > "enlightenment" in someone else's hands Huh?? Part of what "problem"? Checking takes, what, half an hour? And then you go home, maybe for another year or more before you get checked again. Michael, you're not making any sense. It seems to really upset you when you read people saying anything remotely positive about TM, to the point where you become incoherent. You asked a question; you appeared to want to know how folks would respond. Nobody's trying to make you agree with them. Calm down. We aren't your enemies. You might even be courteous and thank us for taking the time to share our thoughts with you in reply to your question. > > From: authfriend > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:23 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > Â > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > You are repeating TM propaganda crap, as if the only other > > techniques are concentration and you know that is not true. > > That's not his point. The point is that *any* effort > impedes transcending. Even TMers who think they're > following instructions can find themselves subtly > exerting effort entirely inadvertently. That's one of > the main reasons for checking, to restore effortlessness. > > > All of you have confirmed my suspicion that no one can come > > up with a logical credible reason that TM is a better or > > superior or more effective meditation than any other > > meditation, other than that Marshy said so. > > > > Big surprise. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > But you don't need TM to do that - so what about TM mantras are special? Cuz if it isn't the mantras, you can't seriously think the simple instructions given in the checking notes for example are responsible for TM being superior to all other meditation methods? Sure as hell got your attention! > > From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:08 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > Â > Correct, the actual instructions on meditation are simply like taking the correct angle on a diving board. Once the correct angle is reached, natural law(gravity) does the rest, you fall into the water. Once the mantra is thought effortlessly, the process of transcending begins. Making any effort at that point,holding onto or changing the rhythm, etc. stops the process of transcending. If we feel like we are *forgetting* the mantra, we let it go because that is when we are transcending. That *gap* between forgetting the mantra and a new thought arising is when we transcended. With practice, that gap gets more and more noticeable, to the point of no mantra and no thought, just silence, awareness of awareness. > > From: authfriend authfriend@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:11 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > > > Natural effortlessness. > > Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific instructional > method Maharishi created (right down to the instruction > to "Sit easily" rather than "Relax" at the start of > checking). > > (The puja may be part of it as well--some TM teachers > would say so, at any rate.) > > But the mantras TM uses are just plain ol' garden-variety > bija mantras. Do a search for "bija mantra" (or "beeja" > or "beej"), Michael, you'll find 'em all over the Web. > They're said to be especially powerful, but they're not > unique to TM. > > > ________________ > > From: Michael Jackson > > To: "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"; mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:31 AM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > > ÃÂ > > > > Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? > > > > > > > > > > From: sparaig > > To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:12 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > > ÃÂ > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in his mind); 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; 3) some mantras were more suitable for some people than than others, and he chose a simple set that was reasonably beneficial for anyone, though each was presumably more beneficial for some people than others. MMY never claimed to be the ultimate expert on such matters. The impression he gave was that he intuited a few things from the tradition that he thought were most important and made them part of the TM canon. L --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" wrote: > > They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the TMO's pockets with more money. More money = Superior. > > seekliberation > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they > > superior? > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
What makes TM "better? How it is taught. The specific mantras used are appropriate for householders. The theory that is presented in terms of rest rather than in terms of concentration, attention, control etc. Many people teach techniques that sound like they should be just as effective as TM, but the theory presented seems to always involve control, maniptulation of attention, etc, which of course, suggests that the student will have an unconscious expectation concerning control, manipulation of attention, etc. Further, TM is taught in a very incremental way with experience trumping theory and explanation. The meditator gets the absolute minimal instructions to get started and then the following 3 nights checking clarify things based on the accumulative experience of the meditator, rather than the TM teacher giving a laundry list of do's and don'ts from the start along with detailed theoretical exposition from the start... And so on. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for > that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all > others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? > > > > > > From: sparaig > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:12 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > Â > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: > > 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in > his mind); > > 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; > > 3) some mantras were more suitable for some people than than others, and he > chose a simple set that was reasonably beneficial for anyone, though each was > presumably more beneficial for some people than others. > > MMY never claimed to be the ultimate expert on such matters. The impression > he gave was that he intuited a few things from the tradition that he thought > were most important and made them part of the TM canon. > > L > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" wrote: > > > > They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the TMO's > > pockets with more money. More money = Superior. > > > > seekliberation > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they superior? > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Okay, not superior but better - he absolutely said many times that TM was the best meditation to do. I think, (in fact I know, having been a teacher), that the connection was made as to the effortlessness, or "naturalness" of the technique. Nature follows the path of least action. This is why it would have been said to be the most effective. I don't recall making a point of ever calling it the "best" The "best" statement, even if implied, was not made without some rationale. Sorry about that. > I wish some other TM teachers here would weigh in on this and explain to me how the instructions which are not much different than other meditations makes it better than any other. > > > > > > From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:15 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > Â > I'm not sure M ever said the mantras he gave were *superior*. It's the naturalness and effortlessness of the technique that is superior. It goes by it's self. There's no concentrating or effort made and is very effective. The mantras are just part of the tradition he came from as is the puja and so on. You could transcend just as easily on *Elohim*, if you didn't have any association with it and used the same instruction used in TM. > > From: Michael Jackson mjackson74@... > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:43 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > But you don't need TM to do that - so what about TM mantras are special? Cuz if it isn't the mantras, you can't seriously think the simple instructions given in the checking notes for example are responsible for TM being superior to all other meditation methods? > > > From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:08 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > Correct, the actual instructions on meditation are simply like taking the correct angle on a diving board. Once the correct angle is reached, natural law(gravity) does the rest, you fall into the water. Once the mantra is thought effortlessly, the process of transcending begins. Making any effort at that point,holding onto or changing the rhythm, etc. stops the process of transcending. If we feel like we are *forgetting* the mantra, we let it go because that is when we are transcending. That *gap* between forgetting the mantra and a new thought arising is when we transcended. With practice, that gap gets more and more noticeable, to the point of no mantra and no thought, just silence, awareness of awareness. > > From: authfriend authfriend@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:11 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > > > Natural effortlessness. Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific instructional > method Maharishi created (right down to the instruction > to "Sit easily" rather than "Relax" at the start of > checking). (The puja may be part of it as well--some TM teachers > would say so, at any rate.) But the mantras TM uses are just plain ol' garden-variety bija mantras. Do a search for "bija mantra" (or "beeja" > or "beej"), Michael, you'll find 'em all over the Web. > They're said to be especially powerful, but they're not > unique to TM. > > > From: Michael Jackson > > To: "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"; mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:31 AM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > > ÃÂ > > > > Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? > > > > > > > > > > From: sparaig > To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:12 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > > ÃÂ > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in his mind); 2) he deemed them
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
yeah well that's part of the problem, putting your "enlightenment" in someone else's hands From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > You are repeating TM propaganda crap, as if the only other > techniques are concentration and you know that is not true. That's not his point. The point is that *any* effort impedes transcending. Even TMers who think they're following instructions can find themselves subtly exerting effort entirely inadvertently. That's one of the main reasons for checking, to restore effortlessness. > All of you have confirmed my suspicion that no one can come > up with a logical credible reason that TM is a better or > superior or more effective meditation than any other > meditation, other than that Marshy said so. Big surprise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > I believe that we are all Pure Awareness, or something like that, Unbounded > Awareness whatever you call it. I believe the reason we can "transcend" is we > are naturally that state, or energy. That is our essence. > > > We are taught from birth to narrow our focus rather than allow ourselves to > experience ourselves as consciousness. When we relax in any way, we can begin > to feel what we really are. So any technique or no technique will do. > > > Some teachers like Adyashanti and Tolle have said this. Yet, Marshy always > claimed TM was superior in enabling humans to experience the state of > unboundedness, superior even to other meditation techniques. For this to be > true given the fact that there are many mantra meditations, not chanting mind > you but other mantras for silent meditation, not the TM mantras, it would > have to mean that the TM mantras in and of themselves were somehow superior. > I have never seen any evidence to suggest so, but it is a logical conclusion. > If TMO could make a logical case for the TM mantras being superior to all > other mantras, it would give credibility to their other claims for superior > results. > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they superior? All I know is this: I am not a meditator by nature. I like to do things, run around, play, get dirty, eat, be competitive at sports, read. The list goes on. What I believe MMY was brilliant at was to appeal to others like me, those not particularly spiritual or monkish by nature, not given to strolling off into some hidden cave or ashram or to spend long hours in intense contemplative or prolonged meditative states. I am just Jo Anybody, Amy Average who wants to have a good time, not hurt anyone, live comfortably. I also want to 'improve' myself, deepen myself, discover mysteries about myself, others, the world. But I don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time sitting on my butt, isolated with my eyes closed. And neither do the majority of the population in the Western World and perhaps everywhere else. And here is my point, MMY was a master at making a simple technique available and easily practiced by people like myself. He opened up a world of potential transcendence for a whole lot of people who would most likely have spent 40 minutes a day watching TV or chatting with friends on the phone instead. He created a technique that people believed would be beneficial and doable. I meditated from the age of 14 until I was about 30 years old. I attended and graduated from MIU. I had two sisters who were initiators. But my engagement with the Movement basically ended in 1980 when I graduated. I was spared the Rajas, the indignities of being on staff. I didn't invest years and years of my life as an initiator or Governor. I don't have any regrets or hold grudges with respect to my time doing TM and being at MIU. We all took our own ride, trod our individual paths. But no one can deny, at least, that Maharishi brought the concept and the practice of using a mantra to transcend to a huge amount of 'ordinary' householders and I don't think this has harmed the planet. At worst it accomplished nothing and at best it gave many the opportunity to deepen their awareness and explore something other than the ordinariness of everyday life. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
MMY definitely said many times that TM was the fastest technique to reach enlightenment and by far the best technique around. He also said that if someone could not do TM, then Yogananda's Kriya meditation was the next best thing, altho a much slower path. He ofen said TM was a jet to enlightenment and other techniques were prop planes or cars. I never heard him say anything about the TM mantras being better. I believe one thing MMY felt was so special about TM was the effortlessness of the use of the mantra and returning to it. That was a huge plus. I am guessing that also that he felt the puja and being initiated into the tradition was a big boon as well. Kind of an automatic blast of powerful support and energy. If you believe in such .. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Okay, not superior but better - he absolutely said many times that TM was the > best meditation to do. > > I wish some other TM teachers here would weigh in on this and explain to me > how the instructions which are not much different than other meditations > makes it better than any other. > > > > > > From: Mike Dixon > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:15 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > Â > I'm not sure M ever said the mantras he gave were *superior*. It's the > naturalness and effortlessness of the technique that is superior. It goes by > it's self. There's no concentrating or effort made and is very effective. The > mantras are just part of the tradition he came from as is the puja and so on. > You could transcend just as easily on *Elohim*, if you didn't have any > association with it and used the same instruction used in TM. > > From: Michael Jackson > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:43 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > But you don't need TM to do that - so what about TM mantras are special? Cuz > if it isn't the mantras, you can't seriously think the simple instructions > given in the checking notes for example are responsible for TM being superior > to all other meditation methods? > > > From: Mike Dixon > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:08 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > Correct, the actual instructions on meditation are simply like taking the > correct angle on a diving board. Once the correct angle is reached, natural > law(gravity) does the rest, you fall into the water. Once the mantra is > thought effortlessly, the process of transcending begins. Making any effort > at that point,holding onto or changing the rhythm, etc. stops the process of > transcending. If we feel like we are *forgetting* the mantra, we let it go > because that is when we are transcending. That *gap* between forgetting the > mantra and a new thought arising is when we transcended. With practice, that > gap gets more and more noticeable, to the point of no mantra and no thought, > just silence, awareness of awareness. > > From: authfriend > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:11 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > > > Natural effortlessness. Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific > > instructional > method Maharishi created (right down to the instruction > to "Sit easily" rather than "Relax" at the start of > checking). (The puja may be part of it as well--some TM teachers > would say so, at any rate.) But the mantras TM uses are just plain ol' > garden-variety bija mantras. Do a search for "bija mantra" (or "beeja" > or "beej"), Michael, you'll find 'em all over the Web. > They're said to be especially powerful, but they're not > unique to TM. > > > From: Michael Jackson > > To: "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"; > > mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:31 AM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > > ÃÂ > > > > Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for > > that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all > > others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > You are repeating TM propaganda crap, as if the only other > techniques are concentration and you know that is not true. That's not his point. The point is that *any* effort impedes transcending. Even TMers who think they're following instructions can find themselves subtly exerting effort entirely inadvertently. That's one of the main reasons for checking, to restore effortlessness. > All of you have confirmed my suspicion that no one can come > up with a logical credible reason that TM is a better or > superior or more effective meditation than any other > meditation, other than that Marshy said so. Big surprise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > What Maharishi did, IMHO, was to think deeply > > about the nature of intention, of mental effort, > > and how easy it was for instruction to lead the > > student to exert effort--and then to figure out > > how to *get around* that tendency, how to lead > > the student to *fall into* correct meditation > > rather than telling them how to "do" it. > > - > > > > Corrections, amplifications, etc., from TM teachers > > are welcome. > > Perfect! And one has to remember that some of the effortless > forms of meditation now available are knock-offs of TM > (Chopra's for example, and another one called Effortless > Meditation), and like most knock-offs, likely to be not as > good as the original. Which is why the "purity of the teaching" is so crucial with regard to TM instruction. It takes very little to throw the whole thing off. > Another thing to remember, I think, is that MMY first > introduced this technique to the West in the late 1950s > and early 1960s. There was nothing else like it available > at the time. Since then the principle of effortlessness > in meditation has passed into the New Age mind-set, so > some offerings do indeed echo that principle, but it was > MMY who first brought it to people's attention, 50 years > ago. It's part of his legacy. Good point. It's entirely possible, I think, that somebody somewhere with deep insight into the nature of intention and effort and the nature and mechanics of consciousness could *improve* on Maharishi's instructions. How's that for heresy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
You are repeating TM propaganda crap, as if the only other techniques are concentration and you know that is not true. All of you have confirmed my suspicion that no one can come up with a logical credible reason that TM is a better or superior or more effective meditation than any other meditation, other than that Marshy said so. From: Mike Dixon To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders By the way, M used to say, in regards to mantras used in TM, that they are *meaningless sounds who's effects are known*. Many are closely associated with Saraswati, the goddess of learning. I would assume that these particular mantras stimulate the ability to learn and comprehend abstract thinking, the ability to understand the Veda. He also explained that experiencing a mantra on it's grossest level had one effect while experiencing it on it's subtlest had a much more powerful effect. The analogy he used was you can throw a rock at someone and bruise him or you could excite the atoms in the rock and vaporise him.< To answer you question below, Judy had it right, the instructions used in TM, teaches you how to get out of the way so that transcending can naturally happen. Their is nothing you can *do* to make yourself transcend. It happens automatically if you get out of the way. Most other meditation techniques tell you what to do and how to do it and tell you to focus on the instructions. Focus, concentration, requires effort. Effort makes the mind active and the idea of TM is for the mind to become less active while remaining alert. When you say, other instructions are *not much different*, THAT is the key here. Any effort, what so ever, retards the process of transcending. Getting checked , even after decades of TM, is beneficial because just hearing those same instructions after many years can be perceived differently and could have the effect of *greasing the skids*, causing less *friction*. My best meditations are when the *bottom falls out* and there I AM. From: Michael Jackson To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders Okay, not superior but better - he absolutely said many times that TM was the best meditation to do. I wish some other TM teachers here would weigh in on this and explain to me how the instructions which are not much different than other meditations makes it better than any other. From: Mike Dixon To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders I'm not sure M ever said the mantras he gave were *superior*. It's the naturalness and effortlessness of the technique that is superior. It goes by it's self. There's no concentrating or effort made and is very effective. The mantras are just part of the tradition he came from as is the puja and so on. You could transcend just as easily on *Elohim*, if you didn't have any association with it and used the same instruction used in TM. From: Michael Jackson To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders But you don't need TM to do that - so what about TM mantras are special? Cuz if it isn't the mantras, you can't seriously think the simple instructions given in the checking notes for example are responsible for TM being superior to all other meditation methods? From: Mike Dixon To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders Correct, the actual instructions on meditation are simply like taking the correct angle on a diving board. Once the correct angle is reached, natural law(gravity) does the rest, you fall into the water. Once the mantra is thought effortlessly, the process of transcending begins. Making any effort at that point,holding onto or changing the rhythm, etc. stops the process of transcending. If we feel like we are *forgetting* the mantra, we let it go because that is when we are transcending. That *gap* between forgetting the mantra and a new thought arising is when we transcended. With practice, that gap gets more and more noticeable, to the point of no mantra and no thought, just silence, awareness of awareness. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:11 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > Natural effortlessness. Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific instructional method Maharishi created (right down to the instruct
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
nothing else like it available at the time??? What the hell do you think the Indians did back then? From: feste37 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 7:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > Okay, not superior but better - he absolutely said many times > > that TM was the best meditation to do. > > For householders, that is. > > > I wish some other TM teachers here would weigh in on this > > and explain to me how the instructions which are not much > > different than other meditations makes it better than any > > other. > > I'm not a TM teacher (I did take checker training but > never got around to being certified), but I think I > have a pretty good handle on what it is about the > instructions that makes such a difference. > > I'm going to reproduce (slightly edited) a post I made > back in 2007: > > - > The instructions for TM are designed to anticipate > every possible way the meditator could introduce > effort and head it off right from the start. > > TM teachers sometimes use the example of "Sit easily" > at the beginning of checking. The difference between > "Sit easily" and "Relax" is subtle but crucial. What > does "Sit easily" mean? It's nondirective. You can't > *try* to sit easily. But it's very likely the phrase > will lead you to relax spontaneously. > > The whole rest of personal instruction and checking > is like that, extraordinarily carefully phrased to > lead the student not to exert any effort. > > The instruction is oxymoronic, in a sense. No other > instruction we get in life tells us how to do > something nonintentionally. Another example the > teachers use is that if somebody tried to give > you instructions on how to go to sleep (other than > "Get in bed, turn out the light, close the eyes, > and lie still"), they wouldn't work, because going > to sleep by definition involves *not-doing*. > > Even the instruction "Don't exert any effort" is > too directive--it gets you all involved in watching > yourself to see if you're exerting effort and then > trying to stop it, making you exert effort to stop > exerting effort. > > So it's phrased differently in TM instruction. > > And of course the follow-up tries to catch any > instances in which the student hasn't quite > gotten it yet, with the same very careful > phrasing. > > (Obviously the whole business is based on the > premise that the most effective way to transcend > is not to exert any effort, a point some disagree > with.) > > Conceptually, the recognition that transcending > should be effortless isn't unique to MMY by any > means. But show me *any* set of instructions for > meditation that is supposed to be effortless, and > I'll show you where it actually either introduces > effort or fails to head it off at the pass. > > What Maharishi did, IMHO, was to think deeply > about the nature of intention, of mental effort, > and how easy it was for instruction to lead the > student to exert effort--and then to figure out > how to *get around* that tendency, how to lead > the student to *fall into* correct meditation > rather than telling them how to "do" it. > - > > Corrections, amplifications, etc., from TM teachers > are welcome. > Perfect! And one has to remember that some of the effortless forms of meditation now available are knock-offs of TM (Chopra's for example, and another one called Effortless Meditation), and like most knock-offs, likely to be not as good as the original. Another thing to remember, I think, is that MMY first introduced this technique to the West in the late 1950s and early 1960s. There was nothing else like it available at the time. Since then the principle of effortlessness in meditation has passed into the New Age mind-set, so some offerings do indeed echo that principle, but it was MMY who first brought it to people's attention, 50 years ago. It's part of his legacy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
Well said. From: feste37 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > Okay, not superior but better - he absolutely said many times > > that TM was the best meditation to do. > > For householders, that is. > > > I wish some other TM teachers here would weigh in on this > > and explain to me how the instructions which are not much > > different than other meditations makes it better than any > > other. > > I'm not a TM teacher (I did take checker training but > never got around to being certified), but I think I > have a pretty good handle on what it is about the > instructions that makes such a difference. > > I'm going to reproduce (slightly edited) a post I made > back in 2007: > > - > The instructions for TM are designed to anticipate > every possible way the meditator could introduce > effort and head it off right from the start. > > TM teachers sometimes use the example of "Sit easily" > at the beginning of checking. The difference between > "Sit easily" and "Relax" is subtle but crucial. What > does "Sit easily" mean? It's nondirective. You can't > *try* to sit easily. But it's very likely the phrase > will lead you to relax spontaneously. > > The whole rest of personal instruction and checking > is like that, extraordinarily carefully phrased to > lead the student not to exert any effort. > > The instruction is oxymoronic, in a sense. No other > instruction we get in life tells us how to do > something nonintentionally. Another example the > teachers use is that if somebody tried to give > you instructions on how to go to sleep (other than > "Get in bed, turn out the light, close the eyes, > and lie still"), they wouldn't work, because going > to sleep by definition involves *not-doing*. > > Even the instruction "Don't exert any effort" is > too directive--it gets you all involved in watching > yourself to see if you're exerting effort and then > trying to stop it, making you exert effort to stop > exerting effort. > > So it's phrased differently in TM instruction. > > And of course the follow-up tries to catch any > instances in which the student hasn't quite > gotten it yet, with the same very careful > phrasing. > > (Obviously the whole business is based on the > premise that the most effective way to transcend > is not to exert any effort, a point some disagree > with.) > > Conceptually, the recognition that transcending > should be effortless isn't unique to MMY by any > means. But show me *any* set of instructions for > meditation that is supposed to be effortless, and > I'll show you where it actually either introduces > effort or fails to head it off at the pass. > > What Maharishi did, IMHO, was to think deeply > about the nature of intention, of mental effort, > and how easy it was for instruction to lead the > student to exert effort--and then to figure out > how to *get around* that tendency, how to lead > the student to *fall into* correct meditation > rather than telling them how to "do" it. > - > > Corrections, amplifications, etc., from TM teachers > are welcome. > Perfect! And one has to remember that some of the effortless forms of meditation now available are knock-offs of TM (Chopra's for example, and another one called Effortless Meditation), and like most knock-offs, likely to be not as good as the original. Another thing to remember, I think, is that MMY first introduced this technique to the West in the late 1950s and early 1960s. There was nothing else like it available at the time. Since then the principle of effortlessness in meditation has passed into the New Age mind-set, so some offerings do indeed echo that principle, but it was MMY who first brought it to people's attention, 50 years ago. It's part of his legacy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
By the way, M used to say, in regards to mantras used in TM, that they are *meaningless sounds who's effects are known*. Many are closely associated with Saraswati, the goddess of learning. I would assume that these particular mantras stimulate the ability to learn and comprehend abstract thinking, the ability to understand the Veda. He also explained that experiencing a mantra on it's grossest level had one effect while experiencing it on it's subtlest had a much more powerful effect. The analogy he used was you can throw a rock at someone and bruise him or you could excite the atoms in the rock and vaporise him.< To answer you question below, Judy had it right, the instructions used in TM, teaches you how to get out of the way so that transcending can naturally happen. Their is nothing you can *do* to make yourself transcend. It happens automatically if you get out of the way. Most other meditation techniques tell you what to do and how to do it and tell you to focus on the instructions. Focus, concentration, requires effort. Effort makes the mind active and the idea of TM is for the mind to become less active while remaining alert. When you say, other instructions are *not much different*, THAT is the key here. Any effort, what so ever, retards the process of transcending. Getting checked , even after decades of TM, is beneficial because just hearing those same instructions after many years can be perceived differently and could have the effect of *greasing the skids*, causing less *friction*. My best meditations are when the *bottom falls out* and there I AM. From: Michael Jackson To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders Okay, not superior but better - he absolutely said many times that TM was the best meditation to do. I wish some other TM teachers here would weigh in on this and explain to me how the instructions which are not much different than other meditations makes it better than any other. From: Mike Dixon To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders I'm not sure M ever said the mantras he gave were *superior*. It's the naturalness and effortlessness of the technique that is superior. It goes by it's self. There's no concentrating or effort made and is very effective. The mantras are just part of the tradition he came from as is the puja and so on. You could transcend just as easily on *Elohim*, if you didn't have any association with it and used the same instruction used in TM. From: Michael Jackson To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders But you don't need TM to do that - so what about TM mantras are special? Cuz if it isn't the mantras, you can't seriously think the simple instructions given in the checking notes for example are responsible for TM being superior to all other meditation methods? From: Mike Dixon To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders Correct, the actual instructions on meditation are simply like taking the correct angle on a diving board. Once the correct angle is reached, natural law(gravity) does the rest, you fall into the water. Once the mantra is thought effortlessly, the process of transcending begins. Making any effort at that point,holding onto or changing the rhythm, etc. stops the process of transcending. If we feel like we are *forgetting* the mantra, we let it go because that is when we are transcending. That *gap* between forgetting the mantra and a new thought arising is when we transcended. With practice, that gap gets more and more noticeable, to the point of no mantra and no thought, just silence, awareness of awareness. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:11 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > Natural effortlessness. Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific instructional method Maharishi created (right down to the instruction to "Sit easily" rather than "Relax" at the start of checking). (The puja may be part of it as well--some TM teachers would say so, at any rate.) But the mantras TM uses are just plain ol' garden-variety bija mantras. Do a search for "bija mantra" (or "beeja" or "beej"), Michael, you'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > Okay, not superior but better - he absolutely said many times > > that TM was the best meditation to do. > > For householders, that is. > > > I wish some other TM teachers here would weigh in on this > > and explain to me how the instructions which are not much > > different than other meditations makes it better than any > > other. > > I'm not a TM teacher (I did take checker training but > never got around to being certified), but I think I > have a pretty good handle on what it is about the > instructions that makes such a difference. > > I'm going to reproduce (slightly edited) a post I made > back in 2007: > > - > The instructions for TM are designed to anticipate > every possible way the meditator could introduce > effort and head it off right from the start. > > TM teachers sometimes use the example of "Sit easily" > at the beginning of checking. The difference between > "Sit easily" and "Relax" is subtle but crucial. What > does "Sit easily" mean? It's nondirective. You can't > *try* to sit easily. But it's very likely the phrase > will lead you to relax spontaneously. > > The whole rest of personal instruction and checking > is like that, extraordinarily carefully phrased to > lead the student not to exert any effort. > > The instruction is oxymoronic, in a sense. No other > instruction we get in life tells us how to do > something nonintentionally. Another example the > teachers use is that if somebody tried to give > you instructions on how to go to sleep (other than > "Get in bed, turn out the light, close the eyes, > and lie still"), they wouldn't work, because going > to sleep by definition involves *not-doing*. > > Even the instruction "Don't exert any effort" is > too directive--it gets you all involved in watching > yourself to see if you're exerting effort and then > trying to stop it, making you exert effort to stop > exerting effort. > > So it's phrased differently in TM instruction. > > And of course the follow-up tries to catch any > instances in which the student hasn't quite > gotten it yet, with the same very careful > phrasing. > > (Obviously the whole business is based on the > premise that the most effective way to transcend > is not to exert any effort, a point some disagree > with.) > > Conceptually, the recognition that transcending > should be effortless isn't unique to MMY by any > means. But show me *any* set of instructions for > meditation that is supposed to be effortless, and > I'll show you where it actually either introduces > effort or fails to head it off at the pass. > > What Maharishi did, IMHO, was to think deeply > about the nature of intention, of mental effort, > and how easy it was for instruction to lead the > student to exert effort--and then to figure out > how to *get around* that tendency, how to lead > the student to *fall into* correct meditation > rather than telling them how to "do" it. > - > > Corrections, amplifications, etc., from TM teachers > are welcome. > Perfect! And one has to remember that some of the effortless forms of meditation now available are knock-offs of TM (Chopra's for example, and another one called Effortless Meditation), and like most knock-offs, likely to be not as good as the original. Another thing to remember, I think, is that MMY first introduced this technique to the West in the late 1950s and early 1960s. There was nothing else like it available at the time. Since then the principle of effortlessness in meditation has passed into the New Age mind-set, so some offerings do indeed echo that principle, but it was MMY who first brought it to people's attention, 50 years ago. It's part of his legacy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Okay, not superior but better - he absolutely said many times > that TM was the best meditation to do. For householders, that is. > I wish some other TM teachers here would weigh in on this > and explain to me how the instructions which are not much > different than other meditations makes it better than any > other. I'm not a TM teacher (I did take checker training but never got around to being certified), but I think I have a pretty good handle on what it is about the instructions that makes such a difference. I'm going to reproduce (slightly edited) a post I made back in 2007: - The instructions for TM are designed to anticipate every possible way the meditator could introduce effort and head it off right from the start. TM teachers sometimes use the example of "Sit easily" at the beginning of checking. The difference between "Sit easily" and "Relax" is subtle but crucial. What does "Sit easily" mean? It's nondirective. You can't *try* to sit easily. But it's very likely the phrase will lead you to relax spontaneously. The whole rest of personal instruction and checking is like that, extraordinarily carefully phrased to lead the student not to exert any effort. The instruction is oxymoronic, in a sense. No other instruction we get in life tells us how to do something nonintentionally. Another example the teachers use is that if somebody tried to give you instructions on how to go to sleep (other than "Get in bed, turn out the light, close the eyes, and lie still"), they wouldn't work, because going to sleep by definition involves *not-doing*. Even the instruction "Don't exert any effort" is too directive--it gets you all involved in watching yourself to see if you're exerting effort and then trying to stop it, making you exert effort to stop exerting effort. So it's phrased differently in TM instruction. And of course the follow-up tries to catch any instances in which the student hasn't quite gotten it yet, with the same very careful phrasing. (Obviously the whole business is based on the premise that the most effective way to transcend is not to exert any effort, a point some disagree with.) Conceptually, the recognition that transcending should be effortless isn't unique to MMY by any means. But show me *any* set of instructions for meditation that is supposed to be effortless, and I'll show you where it actually either introduces effort or fails to head it off at the pass. What Maharishi did, IMHO, was to think deeply about the nature of intention, of mental effort, and how easy it was for instruction to lead the student to exert effort--and then to figure out how to *get around* that tendency, how to lead the student to *fall into* correct meditation rather than telling them how to "do" it. - Corrections, amplifications, etc., from TM teachers are welcome.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
Okay, not superior but better - he absolutely said many times that TM was the best meditation to do. I wish some other TM teachers here would weigh in on this and explain to me how the instructions which are not much different than other meditations makes it better than any other. From: Mike Dixon To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders I'm not sure M ever said the mantras he gave were *superior*. It's the naturalness and effortlessness of the technique that is superior. It goes by it's self. There's no concentrating or effort made and is very effective. The mantras are just part of the tradition he came from as is the puja and so on. You could transcend just as easily on *Elohim*, if you didn't have any association with it and used the same instruction used in TM. From: Michael Jackson To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders But you don't need TM to do that - so what about TM mantras are special? Cuz if it isn't the mantras, you can't seriously think the simple instructions given in the checking notes for example are responsible for TM being superior to all other meditation methods? From: Mike Dixon To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders Correct, the actual instructions on meditation are simply like taking the correct angle on a diving board. Once the correct angle is reached, natural law(gravity) does the rest, you fall into the water. Once the mantra is thought effortlessly, the process of transcending begins. Making any effort at that point,holding onto or changing the rhythm, etc. stops the process of transcending. If we feel like we are *forgetting* the mantra, we let it go because that is when we are transcending. That *gap* between forgetting the mantra and a new thought arising is when we transcended. With practice, that gap gets more and more noticeable, to the point of no mantra and no thought, just silence, awareness of awareness. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:11 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > Natural effortlessness. Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific instructional method Maharishi created (right down to the instruction to "Sit easily" rather than "Relax" at the start of checking). (The puja may be part of it as well--some TM teachers would say so, at any rate.) But the mantras TM uses are just plain ol' garden-variety bija mantras. Do a search for "bija mantra" (or "beeja" or "beej"), Michael, you'll find 'em all over the Web. They're said to be especially powerful, but they're not unique to TM. > > From: Michael Jackson > To: "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"; > mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:31 AM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > > Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for > that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all > others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? > > > > > From: sparaig > To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, > March 5, 2013 1:12 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: 1) they are not om or some other > monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in his mind); 2) he deemed them to > be suitable for householders; 3) some mantras were more suitable for some > people than than others, and he chose a simple set that was reasonably > beneficial for anyone, though each was presumably more beneficial for some > people than others. MMY never claimed to be the ultimate expert on such > matters. The impression he gave was that he intuited a few things from the > tradition that he thought were most important and made them part of the TM > canon. L --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" > wrote: > > They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the > TMO's pockets with more money. More money = Superior. > > seekliberation > > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they > superior? > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
I'm not sure M ever said the mantras he gave were *superior*. It's the naturalness and effortlessness of the technique that is superior. It goes by it's self. There's no concentrating or effort made and is very effective. The mantras are just part of the tradition he came from as is the puja and so on. You could transcend just as easily on *Elohim*, if you didn't have any association with it and used the same instruction used in TM. From: Michael Jackson To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders But you don't need TM to do that - so what about TM mantras are special? Cuz if it isn't the mantras, you can't seriously think the simple instructions given in the checking notes for example are responsible for TM being superior to all other meditation methods? From: Mike Dixon To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders Correct, the actual instructions on meditation are simply like taking the correct angle on a diving board. Once the correct angle is reached, natural law(gravity) does the rest, you fall into the water. Once the mantra is thought effortlessly, the process of transcending begins. Making any effort at that point,holding onto or changing the rhythm, etc. stops the process of transcending. If we feel like we are *forgetting* the mantra, we let it go because that is when we are transcending. That *gap* between forgetting the mantra and a new thought arising is when we transcended. With practice, that gap gets more and more noticeable, to the point of no mantra and no thought, just silence, awareness of awareness. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:11 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > Natural effortlessness. Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific instructional method Maharishi created (right down to the instruction to "Sit easily" rather than "Relax" at the start of checking). (The puja may be part of it as well--some TM teachers would say so, at any rate.) But the mantras TM uses are just plain ol' garden-variety bija mantras. Do a search for "bija mantra" (or "beeja" or "beej"), Michael, you'll find 'em all over the Web. They're said to be especially powerful, but they're not unique to TM. > > From: Michael Jackson > To: "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"; mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:31 AM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > > Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? > > > > ____ > From: sparaig > To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:12 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in his mind); 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; 3) some mantras were more suitable for some people than than others, and he chose a simple set that was reasonably beneficial for anyone, though each was presumably more beneficial for some people than others. MMY never claimed to be the ultimate expert on such matters. The impression he gave was that he intuited a few things from the tradition that he thought were most important and made them part of the TM canon. L --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" wrote: > > They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the TMO's pockets with more money. More money = Superior. > > seekliberation > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they > superior? > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Its not about wanting to hear anything in particular, its > about wanting to hear something CREDIBLE. Michael, the list of things you're willing to find CREDIBLE is nonexistent in this case. > I didn't think there would be anyone who would try to defend > the idea that the TM mantras are somehow superior to other > mantras, so I wanted to know what TM cheerleaders would say > makes TM superior - I never imagined it would be the simple > instructions that you could get from other places that makes > it so special. Yeah, what are those other places? Let's see their instructions. > There are other meditations that are done essentially the > same way - just be quiet inside and when you realize you > are thinking, or having an emotion, go back to the silence > or the breath or whatever. Sure there are. But let's see the instructions. > It is absurd to think the instructions Marshy gave on > doing TM are what make it special. In essence, the > instructions are very similar to other meditations, with > the addition of the mantra. Let's see the instructions. Maybe it's not so absurd as you think. > The instructions given by the Chopra meditation teachers > are essentially the same with a different set of mantras. That wouldn't surprise me, since many if not most of them are former TM teachers. But "essentially the same" still doesn't do it. Let's see the instructions. > So that leaves some nebulous esoteric ideas that something > unknown make TM better? Maybe it was Marshy's vibe that > made it special? No, it's the instructions. > I was wanting to see if someone could come up with a credible > explanation as to how TM is superior to other meditations. So > far, no one has. No, Michael, that isn't what you were wanting. You were wanting to be given explanations you could dismiss so you could triumphantly claim there was no basis to say TM is superior to other meditations. And no matter what explanation you're given, that's what you're going to do. > The idea that it was the simple instructions that one can > get elsewhere just doesn't cut it, and won't no matter how > many times you repeat it. The idea that one can get the same instructions elsewhere doesn't cut it, and won't no matter how many times you repeat it. Let's *see these instructions you can get elsewhere*. Maybe there are some differences you haven't taken into account, or don't recognize the significance of. But we can't tell unless we can compare them to the instructions for TM.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
Its not about wanting to hear anything in particular, its about wanting to hear something CREDIBLE. I didn't think there would be anyone who would try to defend the idea that the TM mantras are somehow superior to other mantras, so I wanted to know what TM cheerleaders would say makes TM superior - I never imagined it would be the simple instructions that you could get from other places that makes it so special. There are other meditations that are done essentially the same way - just be quiet inside and when you realize you are thinking, or having an emotion, go back to the silence or the breath or whatever. It is absurd to think the instructions Marshy gave on doing TM are what make it special. In essence, the instructions are very similar to other meditations, with the addition of the mantra. The instructions given by the Chopra meditation teachers are essentially the same with a different set of mantras. So that leaves some nebulous esoteric ideas that something unknown make TM better? Maybe it was Marshy's vibe that made it special? I was wanting to see if someone could come up with a credible explanation as to how TM is superior to other meditations. So far, no one has. The idea that it was the simple instructions that one can get elsewhere just doesn't cut it, and won't no matter how many times you repeat it. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:05 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > But you don't need TM to do that TM makes it very easy and systematic. The instructions are designed to keep you from getting in your own way. > - so what about TM mantras are special? Cuz if it isn't the > mantras, you can't seriously think the simple instructions > given in the checking notes for example are responsible for > TM being superior to all other meditation methods? This is funny, Michael. Both Mike and I just got done saying we do think it's the instructions; and I explained why it wasn't the mantras (even told you how to check for yourself). But here you are asking the same question all over again as if neither of us had said a word, as if we were going to give you a different answer. The answer doesn't change just because it isn't what you want to hear, Michael. > > From: Mike Dixon > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:08 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > >  > Correct, the actual instructions on meditation are simply like taking the > correct angle on a diving board. Once the correct angle is reached, natural > law(gravity) does the rest, you fall into the water. Once the mantra is > thought effortlessly, the process of transcending begins. Making any effort > at that point,holding onto or changing the rhythm, etc. stops the process of > transcending. If we feel like we are *forgetting* the mantra, we let it go > because that is when we are transcending. That *gap* between forgetting the > mantra and a new thought arising is when we transcended. With practice, that > gap gets more and more noticeable, to the point of no mantra and no thought, > just silence, awareness of awareness. > > From: authfriend > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:11 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > >  > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > > > Natural effortlessness. > > Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific instructional > method Maharishi created (right down to the instruction > to "Sit easily" rather than "Relax" at the start of > checking). > > (The puja may be part of it as well--some TM teachers > would say so, at any rate.) > > But the mantras TM uses are just plain ol' garden-variety > bija mantras. Do a search for "bija mantra" (or "beeja" > or "beej"), Michael, you'll find 'em all over the Web. > They're said to be especially powerful, but they're not > unique to TM. > > > > > From: Michael Jackson > > To: "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"; > > mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:31 AM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > >  > > > > Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for > > that to be true, the particular set of mantras have t
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > But you don't need TM to do that TM makes it very easy and systematic. The instructions are designed to keep you from getting in your own way. > - so what about TM mantras are special? Cuz if it isn't the > mantras, you can't seriously think the simple instructions > given in the checking notes for example are responsible for > TM being superior to all other meditation methods? This is funny, Michael. Both Mike and I just got done saying we do think it's the instructions; and I explained why it wasn't the mantras (even told you how to check for yourself). But here you are asking the same question all over again as if neither of us had said a word, as if we were going to give you a different answer. The answer doesn't change just because it isn't what you want to hear, Michael. > > From: Mike Dixon > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:08 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > Â > Correct, the actual instructions on meditation are simply like taking the > correct angle on a diving board. Once the correct angle is reached, natural > law(gravity) does the rest, you fall into the water. Once the mantra is > thought effortlessly, the process of transcending begins. Making any effort > at that point,holding onto or changing the rhythm, etc. stops the process of > transcending. If we feel like we are *forgetting* the mantra, we let it go > because that is when we are transcending. That *gap* between forgetting the > mantra and a new thought arising is when we transcended. With practice, that > gap gets more and more noticeable, to the point of no mantra and no thought, > just silence, awareness of awareness. > > From: authfriend > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:11 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > > > Natural effortlessness. > > Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific instructional > method Maharishi created (right down to the instruction > to "Sit easily" rather than "Relax" at the start of > checking). > > (The puja may be part of it as well--some TM teachers > would say so, at any rate.) > > But the mantras TM uses are just plain ol' garden-variety > bija mantras. Do a search for "bija mantra" (or "beeja" > or "beej"), Michael, you'll find 'em all over the Web. > They're said to be especially powerful, but they're not > unique to TM. > > > > > From: Michael Jackson > > To: "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"; > > mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:31 AM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > > ÃÂ > > > > Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for > > that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all > > others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? > > > > > > > > > > From: sparaig > > To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:12 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > > > ÃÂ > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: 1) they are not om or some other > > monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in his mind); 2) he deemed them to > > be suitable for householders; 3) some mantras were more suitable for some > > people than than others, and he chose a simple set that was reasonably > > beneficial for anyone, though each was presumably more beneficial for some > > people than others. MMY never claimed to be the ultimate expert on such > > matters. The impression he gave was that he intuited a few things from the > > tradition that he thought were most important and made them part of the TM > > canon. L --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" > > wrote: > > They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the > > TMO's pockets with more money. More money = Superior. > > seekliberation > > > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they > > superior? > > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
But you don't need TM to do that - so what about TM mantras are special? Cuz if it isn't the mantras, you can't seriously think the simple instructions given in the checking notes for example are responsible for TM being superior to all other meditation methods? From: Mike Dixon To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders Correct, the actual instructions on meditation are simply like taking the correct angle on a diving board. Once the correct angle is reached, natural law(gravity) does the rest, you fall into the water. Once the mantra is thought effortlessly, the process of transcending begins. Making any effort at that point,holding onto or changing the rhythm, etc. stops the process of transcending. If we feel like we are *forgetting* the mantra, we let it go because that is when we are transcending. That *gap* between forgetting the mantra and a new thought arising is when we transcended. With practice, that gap gets more and more noticeable, to the point of no mantra and no thought, just silence, awareness of awareness. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:11 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > Natural effortlessness. Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific instructional method Maharishi created (right down to the instruction to "Sit easily" rather than "Relax" at the start of checking). (The puja may be part of it as well--some TM teachers would say so, at any rate.) But the mantras TM uses are just plain ol' garden-variety bija mantras. Do a search for "bija mantra" (or "beeja" or "beej"), Michael, you'll find 'em all over the Web. They're said to be especially powerful, but they're not unique to TM. > > From: Michael Jackson > To: "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"; > mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:31 AM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > > Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for > that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all > others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? > > > > ________ > From: sparaig > To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:12 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: 1) they are not om or some other > monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in his mind); 2) he deemed them to > be suitable for householders; 3) some mantras were more suitable for some > people than than others, and he chose a simple set that was reasonably > beneficial for anyone, though each was presumably more beneficial for some > people than others. MMY never claimed to be the ultimate expert on such > matters. The impression he gave was that he intuited a few things from the > tradition that he thought were most important and made them part of the TM > canon. L --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" > wrote: > > They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the > TMO's pockets with more money. More money = Superior. > > seekliberation > > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they > superior? > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
Correct, the actual instructions on meditation are simply like taking the correct angle on a diving board. Once the correct angle is reached, natural law(gravity) does the rest, you fall into the water. Once the mantra is thought effortlessly, the process of transcending begins. Making any effort at that point,holding onto or changing the rhythm, etc. stops the process of transcending. If we feel like we are *forgetting* the mantra, we let it go because that is when we are transcending. That *gap* between forgetting the mantra and a new thought arising is when we transcended. With practice, that gap gets more and more noticeable, to the point of no mantra and no thought, just silence, awareness of awareness. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:11 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > Natural effortlessness. Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific instructional method Maharishi created (right down to the instruction to "Sit easily" rather than "Relax" at the start of checking). (The puja may be part of it as well--some TM teachers would say so, at any rate.) But the mantras TM uses are just plain ol' garden-variety bija mantras. Do a search for "bija mantra" (or "beeja" or "beej"), Michael, you'll find 'em all over the Web. They're said to be especially powerful, but they're not unique to TM. > > From: Michael Jackson > To: "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"; > mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:31 AM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > > Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for > that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all > others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? > > > > ____________ > From: sparaig > To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:12 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: 1) they are not om or some other > monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in his mind); 2) he deemed them to > be suitable for householders; 3) some mantras were more suitable for some > people than than others, and he chose a simple set that was reasonably > beneficial for anyone, though each was presumably more beneficial for some > people than others. MMY never claimed to be the ultimate expert on such > matters. The impression he gave was that he intuited a few things from the > tradition that he thought were most important and made them part of the TM > canon. L --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" > wrote: > > They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the > TMO's pockets with more money. More money = Superior. > > seekliberation > > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they > superior? > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > Natural effortlessness. Bingo. Or more precisely, the specific instructional method Maharishi created (right down to the instruction to "Sit easily" rather than "Relax" at the start of checking). (The puja may be part of it as well--some TM teachers would say so, at any rate.) But the mantras TM uses are just plain ol' garden-variety bija mantras. Do a search for "bija mantra" (or "beeja" or "beej"), Michael, you'll find 'em all over the Web. They're said to be especially powerful, but they're not unique to TM. > > From: Michael Jackson > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:31 AM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > > Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for > that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all > others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? > > > > ____________ > From: sparaig > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:12 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders > > Â > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: 1) they are not om or some other > monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in his mind); 2) he deemed them to > be suitable for householders; 3) some mantras were more suitable for some > people than than others, and he chose a simple set that was reasonably > beneficial for anyone, though each was presumably more beneficial for some > people than others. MMY never claimed to be the ultimate expert on such > matters. The impression he gave was that he intuited a few things from the > tradition that he thought were most important and made them part of the TM > canon. L --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" > wrote: > > They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the > TMO's pockets with more money. More money = Superior. > > seekliberation > > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they > superior? > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
Natural effortlessness. From: Michael Jackson To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? From: sparaig To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in his mind); 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; 3) some mantras were more suitable for some people than than others, and he chose a simple set that was reasonably beneficial for anyone, though each was presumably more beneficial for some people than others. MMY never claimed to be the ultimate expert on such matters. The impression he gave was that he intuited a few things from the tradition that he thought were most important and made them part of the TM canon. L --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" wrote: > > They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the TMO's pockets with more money. More money = Superior. > > seekliberation > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they superior? > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
Oh come on - Marshy always said TM was better than other meditations - for that to be true, the particular set of mantras have to be superior to all others. If not, what would then make TM better than other meditations? From: sparaig To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in his mind); 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; 3) some mantras were more suitable for some people than than others, and he chose a simple set that was reasonably beneficial for anyone, though each was presumably more beneficial for some people than others. MMY never claimed to be the ultimate expert on such matters. The impression he gave was that he intuited a few things from the tradition that he thought were most important and made them part of the TM canon. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" wrote: > > They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the TMO's pockets > with more money. More money = Superior. > > seekliberation > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they superior? > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if there are any, in his mind); 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; 3) some mantras were more suitable for some people than than others, and he chose a simple set that was reasonably beneficial for anyone, though each was presumably more beneficial for some people than others. MMY never claimed to be the ultimate expert on such matters. The impression he gave was that he intuited a few things from the tradition that he thought were most important and made them part of the TM canon. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" wrote: > > They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the TMO's pockets > with more money. More money = Superior. > > seekliberation > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they superior? > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for TM Cheerleaders
They are superior in that if you pay for them, it fills up the TMO's pockets with more money. More money = Superior. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > My question is, if the TM mantras are superior, how are they superior? >
