--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> 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.
Define "work"... We know that must about any kind of closing the eyes thing will allow some degree of relaxation. We don't know how deep or in what context "deep" should be interpreted. You assume apparently that since more primitive measures of relaxation show no diff between TM and the Relaxation Response, that this means more sophisticated measures wont, at least sometimes. YMMV of course. 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. For some measure of "fine." 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. Not a clue what you're talking about here. My experience only goes to technique 5 or thereabouts. And, given how poorly you describe techniques that I AM familiar with, I'm skeptical of your description of "hynotic inductions" for something that I'm not familiar with. > > 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. > Shrugs. L.
