On Jun 9, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Richard M wrote:
--- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote:
Richard M:
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).
Vaj:
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.
No, no, quite wrong.
To take an unfortunate example - I think TM as a technique is a bit
like learning to smoke a cigarette.
In THAT sense it is not a "skill" (unless you are being perverse and
over-literal). And yet, by repetition, the cloth/the lungs do get
dyed/die by repetition.
This contrasts to the whole idea of "adepts" and "experts" that are
referred to in other schools (and your posts).
Let me put it this way: I think staements such as "John Doe is a TM
expert" or "John Doe is a TM master or adept" are close to being
oxymorons. That is a pointer to an element of uniqueness about the
technique and its philosophy.
It's very democratic too: I can readily admit my lowly place in the
spiritual food chain. But I need bow to no one as to my ability to do
TM. This is a great contribution by Maharishi IMO and seems to me
to be
overlooked here. He was a sort of analog to Luther in this regard.
Unfortunately for your belief, it is just that your belief. Science
tells us something quite different and that is that samadhi is a
skill like many other acquisitions, language, walking, etc. and the
acquisition of such skills follows a certain observable acquisition
curve.
Of course it could that TM is just an introductory technique and does
not lead to such acquisition, but it is perfectly good at what it
does do, for some people.
And you, Vaj, with your emphasis on whether traditions are kosher or
not,
Frankly this is your opinion and certainly not mine. TM is a
perfectly fine intro. form of meditation, aside from the truncated
mantras, but it should not be misconstrued as a complete Hindu mantra
path IME and IMO.
whether MMY has a right to be titled "Maharishi",
My interest is largely historical, whether he was or not is
immaterial, it was an alias he assumed. What concerns me is the
insult to realizers of the various Hindu paths. Many find it
insulting and I can see why.
whether he was
from the right caste,
This really is not MY concern what caste he comes from. But it was a
strong concern for his guru and the lineage he comes from.
and your zealous love of architectonic - that all
stands against that liberating influence. In My Opinion.
OK...
Richard M:
* Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say "A is
better at TM than B".
Vaj:
Do you have evidence for this belief?
Why should I?
Why shouldn't you? We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali
yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those
findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern--
unless of course your primary interest is in stress reduction, which
Relaxation Response forms of meditation are all great at.
It's just obvious. I would say if you don't understand
these points then I don't think you understand where TM is coming
from.
Actually I do. TM is believed to be a form of sahaj meditation where
the principle of "charm" is believed to spontaneously focus or
concentrate the mind with only a minimal amount of effort being
necessary.
