Richard, 1) I respect your opinions, 2) you are entitled to them even if I didn't :-), and 3) I have no interest in arguing with you or anyone else about this (to me) dead horse. But I'm curious that you don't be able to see a funda- mental difference in the *types* of experience being discussed. See below:
> > But the bottom line is that my experience learn- > > ing, practicing, and teaching both TM and other > > techniques of meditation is that Maharishi's > > claims to: 1) the uniqueness of TM, 2) the effect- > > iveness of its "followup," 3) the "differences" > > between the supposed positive effects of TM and > > the positive effects of other techniques, and > > most importantly 4) what it is *worth* in the > > marketplace are at best mistaken and are at > > worst knowing lies. > > I have good reason to respect your opinion because of your > experience (and I do). But of course the force of your claim > "from experience" is opposed by every individual with similar, > or greater experience that disagrees. > > Let's take Jerry Jarvis. I'm assuming he disagrees with you. You should definitely not have picked Jerry. I knew him well and worked closely with him for many years. To the best of my knowledge he has never learned or practiced any technique of meditation other than TM and the other techniques marketed by MMY. From what has been said on this forum by people who have stayed in touch with him, he has not tried any other techniques since leaving the TM movement. How then would you consider his experience similar to mine? Jerry may, in fact, be smarter and wiser than me. But let's talk "apples and oranges." Jerry (to the best of my knowledge) has only ever eaten and sold apples, during the entire course of his life. He has never tasted an orange; he's only *heard about* oranges, or been told about them. I have eaten and sold both apples and oranges. Which of us is likely to have more "credibility" when it comes to a comparison of apples and oranges? THAT was my point to Lawson. NOT that his opinion is not valid, merely that it lacks *breadth* in the greater spiritual smorgasbord. So (to the best of my knowledge) does Jerry's. Jerry undoubtedly knows MUCH more about apples (TM) than I do. But I kinda doubt that he would suggest that he knew as much about a technique that he has never practiced and that I have. The thing is, Jerry wouldn't do that. He might have his opinion, but I remember him as being up-front about it when opinion is based *on what he has been told*, and is not based on his personal experience. Jerry is a TM True Believer, and I don't fault him for that because he (in my memory) is a fairly nice one, and one who rarely used his belief *in what he has been told* to beat people into submission. :-) > And I'm assuming his CV is even more impressive than yours. > Does that make him right and you wrong? Or, in preferred > language, does that make his opinion more credible than yours? As stated above, there is no question that Jerry's CV *about TM* is more impressive than mine. But I'm not talking about *only* TM. I'm comparing TM to some other techniques that I have both learned and taught. Jerry has (to the best of my knowledge) never learned or taught them. How then could his opinion on the theoretical "differences" between them and one of them's "superiority" over the other be based on anything other than theory and what he's been told? My opinion is based on actual experience. That may not make me more "credible," but it sure takes things out of the realm of empty speculation, which I think is the realm you're in when you have someone who claims that something he has never experienced is inferior to something he has. This is a point that long-term TMers on this forum NEVER SEEM TO GET. They are talking *theory*, and belief *in what they have been told*. Those of us who have "played both sides of the net" are talking our own personal experience. There is a difference.
