--- In [email protected], Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > p.s. don't give me the "people value what they pay for" > platitude. That's complete superficial BS in my book.
It's not even *their* platitude. They're just parroting Maharishi's exact words, as usual. > People value their health, their relationships, nature, > etc. when it get down to the bottom line in life - those > things you can't put a price on. Like the question all of the TM supporters are avoiding like the plague -- WHY would an org that claims it has the solution to all the prob- lems of life want to charge so much for it that very few will ever start? The answer IMO is that they don't really want what they say they want. They want first MONEY, and second, they want the CREDIT for having "saved the world," even though they did diddley- squat to achieve it. They want to be "special." Just to follow up on some of the things that the TM supporters are avoiding here, Emily, first and foremost is the supposed "difference" between the technique sold for $47 by this group and the one invented by Herbert Benson way back when and the TM technique invented and sold by Maharishi. The thing *I'd* ask of anyone who claims that there is a difference is, "When and where did you actually *learn* these other techniques that you claim are 'different' than TM?" The answer will be, "Never. Nowhere." Again, they're just parrot- ing what Maharishi said, without ever having learned the techniques themselves. In other words, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone to meditate and teach them according to the exact instructions he told me to impart to students, but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would it be the same technique, or a different one? What if I taught them to use the mantra "Ram" (the one Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone) instead of one from the latest "official" list? Would it be "different" than TM, or the same? What if I made up a different word and suggested that they use it as a mantra? Would it be the same as TM, or different? My contention, based on what I have read about Benson's technique and these other guys' technique, is that this is what they did. And it's *remarkably* easy to do. Just parrot the same "effortlessness" instructions, but using a different buzzword. Some would claim that this makes the other techniques "different." I suggest that the only reasons they're saying this are 1) they're desperately trying to perpet- uate the myth of TM's "uniqueness," 2) they're trying to demonize what they perceive as the "competition," *without ever even trying it*, and 3) again, they're just parroting Maharishi. Contrary to what Lawson believes, there is NO "indi- vidual instruction" in TM. I was a TM teacher; he was not. He's trying to glorify something not terribly glorious. A ROBOT could teach TM. It's that mechanical, and that variation-less. You fill out a form, the TM teacher notes your age and chooses the corresponding mantra from a memorized list of them, and then gives it to you. ALL instructions you receive, both during the teaching process itself and in the days following have been equally memorized, and do not vary in the least depending on your questions or experiences. If you report experience A, the teacher switches to the prepared spiel for experience A. If you report exper- ience B, the teacher switches to the prepared spiel for experience B. I'm really NOT exaggerating when I suggest that a robot could do it. So what's the difference between that technique and one that preserves the same "effortlessness" instruc- tions, but uses a mantra from another list? The TM parrots here would have you believe that the difference is worth paying the additional $1453 for. Then again, the two TM parrots who have chimed in on this (authfriend and sparaig) were never TM teachers. They have *no idea* what the process of teaching TM really is, only some glorified idea of it they carry around in their heads to help them believe that *their* instruction was somehow "personal" and "individual." It wasn't. They learned it from the same robots as anyone else. Those of us who have learned other forms of meditation (which they have not) or have actually learned to teach other forms of meditation know that there IS such a thing as "individual instruction," and that there are techniques for determining the best form of meditation for an individual. TM is not one of these. It's a *manufactured* technique, stamped out on an assembly line and sold as "custom" to people who want to believe that they paid the big bucks for something custom. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 11:38 AM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM > > I don't actually think "that mid to low-income families benefit more from TM > than the above average-income families or the rich" ? Â I do think that > those that struggle with the impacts of being low-income (I included the term > "mid" because so many of us are now finding ourselves tending towards the > lower end of that range in my subjective analysis in terms of the bubble we > used to live in disappearing), have increased stress and anxiety in their > lives around earning a living wage, maintaining housing, paying necessary > bills, affording or having health care and dental care, eating decent food, > sending their kids to college, etc., etc., etc. Â When one is concerned about > one's day to day survival and raising kids, one doesn't splurge on meditation > instruction priced in the thousands - regardless of the benefits that may be > accrued. Â > > I'm not weighing in on the merits of that decision, I'm just saying that is > the reality. Â And, there are millions of people out of work now who, why > they might benefit enormously from such a practice, and might contribute > mightily to global peace, it isn't going to happen if priced out of the ball > park. Â Why can't the practice be taught for a nominal fee, is what I want to > know. Â For the good of humanity, for the good of the planet, to reduce crime > and pain and suffering, to move our species to a better spiritual place? Â > > > > > ________________________________ > From: nablusoss1008 <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 11:23 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E RÂ Â BLOG/ CLIP ONÂ Â Â Â TM > > > > > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > > > You must *not* read all my posts as I mentioned early on that I felt the > > > cost was not in line with the philosophy - i.e. if this is a technique > > > being promoted to solve the world's ills and help mankind, than it should > > > be priced to allow those who could most benefit (e.g. mid to low-income > > > families) take advantage. > > > > Why is that ? > > > > To clarify my question a bit; why do you think that mid to low-income > families benefit more from TM than the above average-income families or the > rich ? > > > Â >
