--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <lengli...@...> wrote:
> > 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. I don't really understand how many different ways there are to think of it. My point was that there seems to be a lot of leeway with the so called innocent practice and it still works. For example Indians who are using their Istideva's name transcend just fine despite all sorts or emotional connections with their mantra. Thinking your mantra from a body part, which would be exactly the kind of things TM teachers are taught to poo poo as not innocent and would be introducing effort, work just fine as well. And by the time we get to the expansion of awareness technique found in certain advanced techniques and the now defunct Age of Enlightenment technique, we have a practice that for all purposes is a straight up hypnotic inductions with all the trappings of a contrived moodmaking technique generated by imagination. But again, it is just fine from Maharishi. I think they all work the same and that the delicacy of the practice is a myth created for marketing branding purposes. So whenever I hear a TM teacher or practitioner put down the effectiveness of some other form of meditation (which you are not guilty of here) I think it is misguided BS. But his unique contribution becomes a lot more muddled when you examine his whole technique range. > > L. > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > 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. >
