--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: snips > > 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. > > The one advantage TM had was it enabled a large number of enthusiastic young > people, and a few older ones, to teach a large number of others to meditate > comfortably in a fairly short period of time, at originally, a fairly low > cost. Mass production. Very mechanical, but it worked fairly well.
I agree with this. The large numbers of people made TM teachers enabled loads of people to learn to meditate. TM teachers were never considered gurus by anyone. They taught carefully and according to the instructions they had been given. This is, I think, a very good thing - not perfect or as wonderful as getting a direct instruction from a Master, but better than never learning to meditate or to have those opportunities to let go and awaken. Better than never getting exposure to some understanding about enlightenment and evolution (or changing) of the nervous system. Many many people, I think, have benefited from TM. Some not so much, some maybe needed more guidance, but overall, a really good thing. > > A large number of people have also learned other meditation systems, and > these too seem to have been effective. > > It has never been determined specifically how much of the rigmarole could be > eliminated from TM teaching and still have it be effective, but the core > value of TM seems to be the mechanical checking procedure; mantras are not > that specific, except for length, and the religious trappings also are not > essential (and this would apply to other systems as well). Because TM says it > allows one to contact the source of all experience, and everybody has this, > the source of experience is not owned by anyone, it is not proprietary in any > way. There is no actual tradition necessary to have it; many come to > experience this without any teaching whatsoever. > > 'Tradition', that is, the memory of what other people have done and like, and > want to tell others about, only refers to being told about the source of > experience, and perhaps ways to experience it more clearly, not the actual > thing. 'You are conscious' is pretty much the whole thing. Many people learn > a meditation, and then stop, and perhaps then try another one and eventually > stick with whatever works for them. There is very little research on who > stops a meditation system or why. The few hints in TM research seem to > indicate that about 20% of those that learn TM continue regularly. This is, > coincidentally, the percentage of meditators in my immediate family that > continued. Most of them are now dead, due to the nature of human bodies to > stop working after a time. I am next in line for this. > > Most people seem to have a definite need to be part of a community, and that > seems to be one reason why these tradition things come together. We are herd > animals for the most part, while our ego at the same time declares how unique > we are. We are unique, but not in the way we ordinarily imagine. > > As for people valuing expensive things they have paid for, the latter part of > this video on bottled water shows how deceptive that is psychologically in > determining actual value. > > http://youtu.be/XfPAjUvvnIc > > ----------------------------- > > >> ----- 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 ? >
