--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 19, 2007, at 11:01 AM, do.rflex wrote: > > > I go by *experience*, not TMO propaganda. > > TM instruction is TMO propaganda. You cannot be instructed in > authentic TM without being indoctrinated in their set of > expectations. Heck, they'll even try to convince you they've > proved it with "science"!
Nonsense. It's entirely possible to separate the "indoctrination" from experience of the technique. Not only is it possible, it isn't possible *not* to separate them. It's not possible to "indoctrinate" someone into the experience of the technique. That experience is what it is, independently of any thoughts, scientific or otherwise, *about* the experience. Descriptions of the experience cannot generate the experience because, by definition, such descriptions, no matter how precise, are always inaccurate and inadequate. The most "indoctrination" and descriptions of the experience can accomplish is to lead you to learn the technique and inspire you to keep practicing. [to Angela:) > One of the most obvious deficits in TM practice is torpor, and > then, falling asleep. If you know what causes this and when you > observe (for example) that the technique for relieving torpor > is not part of TM practice, you can gain an understanding as to > why it occurs so commonly. This is circular reasoning. You're defining "torpor" and sleep as a deficit. If they aren't a deficit but part of a natural cycle, then obviously there's no basis to have a technique for "relieving" them; to "relieve" them would interfere with that cycle and would therefore *itself* be a deficit. > Another way, is through authoritative testimony, the experiences > of others in the practical tradition itself. Particularly in > regard to mental mantra practice, it's very detailed in what the > stages are, what their signs are and what the pitfalls are. But the "practical tradition itself" of which you speak is not TM, therefore the "testimony" relating to it is irrelevant with regard to TM. My overall point is that you never, in my observation, actually deal with TM on its own terms. You're always making arguments to the effect that because Tradition A says X and MMY says Y, therefore MMY must be wrong. But that's no more valid as an argument than a TMer saying that because Tradition A says X and MMY says Y, therefore Tradition A must be wrong. You sound like a Catholic priest insisting Martin Luther was wrong because he didn't teach Catholic dogma, or a Republican insisting a Democrat is wrong because the Democrat advocates X while Reagan advocated Y. That isn't an argument against Luther's teaching or against Democratic policy that would convince anybody who wasn't already a believing Catholic or a devout Republican. That MMY's teaching is different from that of standard Yogic tradition is not only a given, it's MMY's raison d'etre, just as a teaching that was different from Catholic dogma was Luther's raison d'etre. If you can't show why MMY's or Luther's teachings are wrong *on their own terms*, you haven't said a damn thing worth hearing.
