On Jun 9, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Richard M wrote:
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?)
Maybe you should listen closer?
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?
How much did you want to bet?
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.
Agreed.
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).
Of course all the others on the list could be used by "normal" people
as well.
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).
So, in your opinion the cloth does not get dyed by repetition, the
"gap" does not widen and TM does not lead to higher states of
consciousness. Interesting.
* Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say "A is
better at TM than B".
Do you have evidence for this belief?
Many people quit TM, more than stay with it.
Recent anecdotal reports of MUM students claims that for a
significant number of students, TM doesn't seem to work for them.
* 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?)
This is your misunderstanding of meditation theory and practice,
which is also sadly pervasive in TM circles. Prayatna or technique =
effort. It's inescapable.
* 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)
Again, not unique. Many folks-in-the-world practice non-TM forms of
meditation quite successfully.
* 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.
Same with many other meditation forms.
