sparaig wrote:
> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> sparaig wrote:
>>
>>>> Most meditation techniques are like the TM advanced technique except
>>>> they have the full mantra and are for another "deity" which provides a
>>>> different and positive effect and certainly not dullness and stress is
>>>> also dissolved. Let's not "spin doctor" with such ignorant bullshit
>>>> from the MarshyBots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well, I run into plenty of people who claim that meditation xyz is "just
>>> like TM"
>>> but USUALY I found it is because they don't understand TM (or perhaps their
>>> own meditation tradition for that matter, come to think of it).
>>>
>>> Do you agree with Barry's claim that TM can adequately be described by
>>> "thinking some magic words" to yourself?
>>>
>>> Lawson
>>>
>> Mantra shastra is based on nada yoga, the science of sound. You can't
>> take any old words and make them work. Musicians should understand
>> this. Some words are going to be dissonant and others consonant in
>> their effect. The mantras have survived because they work and can be
>> refined to very subtle levels (due to the vowels they use). Try that
>> with the word "boat" which won't refine very well.
>>
>>
>
> MMY claims, and such is my experience, that there is no limit to how refined
> a
> mantra can get. For that matter, while perhaps TM mantras facilitate the
> refinement process due to some innate nature, I believe that ANY mental
> device, not just a sound, can be used to refine perception to an arbitrarily
> deep level.
>
If that were true we'd really see a wide range of mantras in the
shastras, especially with the bijas. There is a difference between
"believing" something and actually studying the science with masters.
They will tell you the wrong sound can make you crazy.
