authfriend wrote: > >> Oh come now. You can waste all the time you want on trying to >> disprove me mainly because you don't like me like you don't like >> many other folks on this group (and I'm sure you will follow up >> trying to disclaim it). >> > > There are a few folks on this forum I dislike, > but I've never included you among them. You're a > bit of a blowhard, but you seem pretty harmless. > Ooh, it takes one to know one I guess. :) Most people who know personally know I'm a pretty easy going person but can be harsh online sometimes. It's mainly when I get frustrated with people misunderstanding things. You wouldn't want to be on a tech forum I'm on. :) > I don't try to disprove things folks say because > I dislike them. I do it when I think they're > mistaken, whether I like them or not (and support > them when I think they're right, whether I like > them or not). > > >> That doesn't make you any better a person. You've never taught >> meditation so no first hand experience to speak of. >> > > I have firsthand experience *being taught* TM, and > I took checker training, which comprises all the > personal instruction except the puja and giving > the mantra. > I addressed some of these points in my reply to do.rflex. The method of giving the mantra is just common sense and one that many gurus have done down through time. I don't offhand ever even recall MMY making any claim that the methods were all that unique. I think he figured he would have been laughed at by the Indian community if they found out. It's the entire package that was unique but then so are many of the programs that other gurus teach. I still have my TTC notes which are somewhat redundant (I don't you would have enjoyed the redundancy as you are smart enough to get it the first time like me). > I have taught > >> meditation so have that first hand experience. I already said >> > these > >> descriptions are not exactly the same thing but they are close >> > enough. > >> You're just like a old boss I once had who would find some little >> obscure point and then pick on it regardless of how well one did >> > the job > >> just because he was a control freak. >> > > Good lord. "Some little obscure point"? I quoted > a whole batch of of stuff from Sivananda's Web site > and from one of his books that *completely* > contradicts your claims. > You didn't go far enough into the text or you would have found this: "Whenever the mind begins to wander, again chant OM verbally. As soon as the mind gets calm, mentally repeat OM again."
Replace OM with "the mantra" and you have the similar instruction of TM. You also have to understand that in the context of what he is teaching that "chant verbally" can be mental. Also Sivananda's method of meditation described in the book is a lot heavier a practice than TM and about what you give to a disciple not someone who simply comes to learn a yogic meditation as a householder. TM is more of a "laissez-faire" version. If you read more of the book there are some modifications for householders. Again this was written for an Indian audience. I would suspect that if you went to a Sivananda center to learn meditation that the rules are very light just like TM. That's why I say you have to look at this text conceptually and in it's entire context. >> Anyway the point was as others here (who you probably don't like >> either) have pointed out that Maharishi didn't invent this stuff. >> It is very traditional. >> > > Depends on what you're identifying as "this stuff." > What parts do you believe he invented then? > And so there was no need for Chopra to give any credit to > >> Maharishi for a method that has been traditional for centuries >> anyway. >> > > That's not a position I took, Bhairitu. You haven't > been paying attention. > Didn't say you did. I was addressing Shemp's original statement.
