--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > Seems to me that MMY's "unique contribution" is the understanding that > > > > thinking a mantra is no different than thinking any other thought. > > > > > > > > Insomuch as most other meditation "techniques" seem to miss this point, > > > > I'd say it is unique to TM (or at least, my interpretation of TM). > > > > > > > > > > > > L > > > > > > This principle doesn't hold up all the way through the advanced > > > techniques or the defunct Chopra technique. But in any case I've not met > > > any TMer who could rightfully claim the kind of exposure to different > > > meditaitons that would make this claim valid and that criticism goes > > > doubly for Maharishi who according to his own reports was a company man. > > > But was have a few people here who seem to have gone further and found > > > out that it was not a unique contribution. > > > > Huh. I've taken chopra's primoridal sound technique and several advanced > > techniques > > > > about 4-5 of them, I think > > > > > > We seem to have different ideas about how things work. > > > > > > Lawson. > > At one stage you are directing the mantra. This is not like any other > thought. That was my point. >
We seem to have different ideas about how things work > I know all of these advanced techniques are on the web but I don't like to > piss people off unnecessarily by being more specific. I remember how people > into it feel about their secrets. But I hope you get my point from that. We seem to have different ideas about how things work But I'm not surprised, I've objected strongly to descriptions of advanced techniques that I have heard before. L.
