--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Richard M" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > > 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). > > > > I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people > > who are very good at TM. They transcend easily and feel > > good in their practice, with little if any adverse effects > > (unstressing). They may be naturally good at it or it may > > have come from practice or both. > > Ruth, you're going to groan (and I don't blame > you), but I chalk the differences in how some > people react to TM as opposed to the way others > react to TM as predilection, which I then chalk > up to "past life experience." OK, *forget* the > "past life experience" if you don't believe in > that, but "predilection" is Right On in my exper- > ience as both a meditator and as a teacher of > meditation. > > My theory is that those who have "paid their dues" > performing meditative practices in the past are > more likely to "fall into" other, similar practices > in another life. If you don't believe in past lives, > call it pure predilection...the fact that different > human beings have different nervous systems and > likes and dislikes and things that they "resonate" > with and things that they do not. > > Whatever you call it, the outcome is the same. Some > experience what they call transcendence (although I > don't necessarily call it that) very quickly with > TM, and some don't. For some, it takes time before > they "settle down" enough to even sit through 20 > minutes of TM practice. For others, it's like pulling > teeth even after years of TM practice. > > In my opinion, there is "no harm, no foul" in ANY > of these different reactions. I have known people who > *hated* TM, and then tried a meditation practice that > involved focus and concentration, and *loved* it. They > "fell into" that practice immediately, and found *it* > effortless, whereas they always found TM effortful. > Go figure. This is completely contradictory to the > dogma of the TM movement, and yet as a person who has > taught hundreds of people TM and another hundreds of > people other techniques of meditation, I've seen it > happen. > > There is simply no predicting who will "get" a par- > ticular practice. Some will, some won't. No harm, no > foul either way in my opinion. Some will "get" one > practice and not another. Again, no harm, no foul. > > Ritalin -- a form of speed, an amphetamine if I am > not mistaken -- has the effect of *calming down* > certain people. For others, it has the effect of > speed in general. Same with meditation practices. > > Also, contrary to what Richard suggests, there are > some meditation practices that one can *definitely* > get better at over time. Which is a good thing. > Imagine being one of the people who *didn't* fall > easily into TM and being told for years that it was > all your fault. Oh. You probably were. >
Not my view guv! When I say that I don't think TM depends on aptitude or skill, I can quite believe that there are many other techniques that DO. And with those I would expect the meditator to become more adept over time.
