--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On May 17, 2005, at 4:29 AM, bbrigante wrote: > > > it's a shame that they are unable to > > > expand their awareness through a technique that they practiced > > > happily for years simply because they felt pushed around. > > > > TM is just meditation with supports. The support is the mantra. > > Supports are like training wheels. Eventually you drop the > > training wheels.>> > > You really don't seem to have ever learned TM. It is as if you > never learned it. I'm not being sarcastic. Any TM'r reading your > posts, it is as if you really don't understand the technique.
Just as counterpoint (not argument), I practiced and taught TM for 14 years, and it is clear to me that Vaj's POV is one of having been there, done that, and moved on to other tech- niques and traditions. He may *describe* TM practices using terminology that is different, but I have never gotten the feeling that he doesn't understand it. In particular, the "training wheels" concept above is pretty standard in some traditions. Many of the techniques they teach are *remarkably* like TM in terms of effortlessness and the use of the mantra. In two or three I have come in contact with, the use of mantra in conjunction with this effortless approach (as opposed to a more focused or concen- trative approach) is often viewed as a beginner's technique. Once the student gains some familiarity with effortless transcending using a mantra, it is suggested that they try effortless transcending using no mantra or other "starting point" for the meditation. They are encouraged to merely sit and "let go." > Also, what about the TM-Siddhis? If you knew anything about TM you > would know that what you describe is kindof hilariously funny > because you don't seem to know anything about the TM-Siddhis > either. Again I must respectfully disagree. Vaj's POV is very traditionalist as to the long-term *effects* of attempting to learn the siddhis (as opposed to having them unfold naturally). That somewhat negative POV is probably more common in traditional Indian teaching than the contrary, that learning the siddhis has value for the unenlightened seeker. I actually don't remember him ever saying much about the actual mechanics of the TM siddhi practice. So what I suspect is going on is that you are interpreting his admittedly negative view of attempting to learn the siddhis *period* for a lack of understanding of the TM way of attempting to learn them. Vaj should correct me here if I have gotten this wrong. > > Maybe they moved on to a higher meditation--a fast boat without > > training wheels--or even without a boat. > > Or maybe they are just enjoying the bliss after 30 years of TM and > have slowed down their evolution. Nothing wrong with that. Or maybe they felt that they had gone about as far as the TM "boat" could take them, and decided to try alternative means of commuting. :-) > > Whatever the case, I hope they have good path after leaving this > > cult called the TMO and truly attain in this lifetime. > > Lol, they went off and immediatly joined a cult. > Many people here seem to do that. It is true that many people who have spent decades in an environment that encourages the idea that a teacher is *necessary* find another teacher when they decide to leave the first one. But that makes neither teaching organization a "cult." Man, haven't you gotten tired enough of having the "cult" epithet thrown at you because you practice TM to not throw it around yourself? > Believe me, if I give up TM, > I will not be following any other gurus or guru-esses. I'm not > much of a guru or hero follower really...not like most people > here. Thats why I always say that most people here are WAY > more TMO than I have ever been, because they have such a NEED > of following a guru. This is a trait, both in and out of TMO. > I have never been very good at this trait. Cool. Then if you ever do give up TM, you can merely be accused of joining the "cult of self" or the "cult of no- cult," as I have been repeatedly. Look forward to it. :-) The word "cult," when used by *anyone*, is a thought-stopper. I'm fairly sensitive to it because I've had to fight such epithets, and more concrete issues such as blacklisting, on the front lines. It's sorta like calling any American who was against the rush to war after 9/11 a "traitor." The intent of hurling the epithet is to demean the person being called the name, to encourage other people in the audience to brand the person with that label, and thus to undercut anything that the targeted victim says by calling his or her credibility into question. You wouldn't like it much if the epithet "cultist" was applied to you, right? If that's so, you might think about not trying to brand others with it. Just my opinion... Unc To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
