SpareEgg:
>> Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes
>> that TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be
>> surprised if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to
>> their students. the quality control just isn't there.
>> Radically different techniques go by the same name.
Vaj:
> At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson
> listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological
> signature:
>
> Vipassana Meditation
> Mantra Meditation
> Mindfulness Meditation
> Transcendental Meditation
> Breath Focus
> Kripalu Yoga
> Kundalini Yoga
> Repetitive Prayer
>
> So much for "uniqueness", huh?
(Now I'm confused. I thought Vaj had been trying to claim that
TM does NOT have the same "physiological signature" as his preferred
techniques?)
Anyhoo...
I find rugby to be a pretty unique sport. Yet here are seven other
sports that I wouldn't mind betting have the same "physiological
signature":
* Cross country running
* US "Football"
* Soccer
* Basketball
* Tennis
* Ice Hockey
* Swimming
So much for "uniqueness", huh?
> The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and
> biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the
> only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to
> accept such BS. The independent research "Meditation: In Search of a
> Unique Effect" put this and a number of other TM research
> untruths to rest way back in the 80's!
Any uniqueness claimed for TM does not lie in its effect. The doctrine
is that pretty much all roads lead to Rome, but TM is particulary
suitable for "normal" folks. (OK, I know, there's a come-back there).
The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness as being:
* Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better" at, as
in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't say
"I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you were
doing it wrong five years ago).
* Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say "A is
better at TM than B".
* Not mental effort (in the sense of trying to still the
mind, or empty the mind of thoughts, or concentrate on an object of
attention. That is how meditation is thought of in the popular
imagination. Where on earth did folks get these ideas from, except from
other techniques pushing those ideas?)
* Of practical value for folks-in-the-world (as opposed to folks who
want simply to make religious progress or gain altered states of
consciousness)
* Benefits are not conditional on buying into a belief system. Even if
you are a Lennonist ("above us only sky"), TM will still work and be
(practically) effective for you.
Although these points have all been thoroughly discussed here, I still
find them "broadly" true. Taken individually you can of course prod and
poke and question. But taken together, like the strands that make up a
rope, I think the claim for uniqueness is not unreasonable. In all
likelihood the other seven techniques listed above have some claim to
uniqueness as well.
