--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: > > > > Why is it 'incorrect' if you say something wrong, deceptive > > but a blatant lie if Barry does so? > > I don't say things with the intention to deceive, first > of all, although I may say something wrong inadvertently. Can't argue with that, because, unlike others I am not into mind reading. But you should also be clear that it is obvious that you try to diminish points that are unfavorable to your arguments, as in this case. The point is that there are teachers, who still teach in this way, they are quite a few, so there is still a good chance to get one of those two mantras, and let me calculate, if the amount of teachers from that time would be 50%, it would be about 8 times higher than getting any other mantra, (16 divided by 2), but let's assume it's just slightly over 10%, then chances are that you get the mantra Ram are about as much as that of any other of the later mantras. ;-) > Second, not everything Barry says that is wrong is a > blatant lie. Sometimes he gets things wrong inadvertently > as well.
Here you get so boring that I find it hard to take you seriously. > If the above confuses you, please consult Mr. Dictionary > for the meaning of "to lie" and "to deceive." And maybe you conduct Mr. Dictionary about the difference between the active verb 'to deceive' and the adjective 'deceptive'. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi > > > > > Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures > > > > > Emily doesn't. > > > > > > > > This is a very deceptive answer. > > > > > > Well, no, it isn't. It may be *incorrect* in the case of > > > TM teachers who got only the two early Rishikesh mantras > > > and are still giving them out today, but how many such > > > teachers are there? IOW, it's a minor inaccuracy. > > > > First of all it may not be 'incorrect', it certainly IS > > incorrect, wrong, false and misleading. > > Again your lack of fluency in English is causing problems, > with regard to the "It may be..." construction. Why again? Stop patronizing me and making unfounded assumptions. > Let me > say it slightly differently: Even if I got that one point > wrong, it was minor, because there aren't many from those > days still teaching. Both versions of that statement > acknowledge the inaccuracy. "Well, no, it isn't" referred > to your "deceptive" characterization. > > > And it is not minor, because you can not > > determine how active early TM teachers still are. This > > is regarding any teacher until 1969. Some of the most > > successful TM teachers were/are from this time. These > > were the mantras - if everything followed the usual > > course - the Beatles got. > > How many of them are still teaching? Because Barry's > question had to do with the present. How many are teaching at all? How much is TM still being taught? And then: many of them are teachers of the first hour, they are Rajas today. > > Many of these early TM teachers > > initiated many thousands into TM. Many were early scientists > > who made research on TM, I know one of them, who is now an > > independent teacher. Many had charisma later TM teachers who > > were on the mass courses of La Antilla or Mallorca didn't have. > > Fine, but irrelevant. Everything you go on to say is also > irrelevant to the question Barry asked. Not irrelevant to their influence today. > > And even if they are just a 'minor inaccuracy' they prove > > the principle, what, so it seems you easily lose out of > > sight: One (or two) mantras are really enough. And that's > > all that Barry was trying to say. > > Well, no, it isn't what he was trying to say. (I'm sure > he'll say it was *now*, but it wasn't to start with.) Yes he clearly said it. And you know it. > This is > > further substantiated by my further comment about the advanced > > techniques. Why have only one mantra in the advanced technique > > and 16 mantras for TM? > > I retained my original bija mantra when I got my advanced > technique (I have only one). I said there are exceptions. But with a second advanced technique, you are likely to lose that one, with the third you are almost sure. So why you never got any more? > > The truth is the context, in which TM is presented: In many > > of the mantra oriented traditions, actually only one mantra > > is given. Or rather, stating it more clearly: all receive > > the same mantra. Many of these traditions, like Surat Sabhd > > Yoga, or Rhadasoami give this mantra in group initiations, > > the mantra may vary from group to group, but initiation by > > a master is a necessity. Here in these groups, the context > > is a different one from TM. The 'story' is that the master > > imbibes the mantra with power, and the mantra connects > > therefore the master and the disciple. > > Fine, but irrelevant in the context of what I said to Barry. > Different discussion. It is context and explanation. As a background information, this is indeed very relevant. Remember the topic: mantras are exchangeable, and one mantra is enough. > > Even though many TM teachers would subscribe to such a view, > > as they believe, that the power of the mantra comes through > > the holy tradition and more specifically GD, this is not the > > official TM story. It's too mystic, not scientific enough. > > Another story had to be created, and that is that the mantras > > are secret, and were just revived by GD, and had to be > > individually selected. > > I never heard the story that they were "revived by GD," > by the way. You are not a TM teacher. > (I learned TM in 1975.) I can't now recall > whether I knew at that time that they were chosen by age, > but if not I found out not long after. As you came to it quite late, you may have learned it soon, but many of us, actual teachers were surprised by this fact on being made teachers. In any case, however soon you have learned it, it was AFTER you had started TM. Or else, if you would have substituted the logic behind TM with your own, it wouldn't have mattered to you. > > This doesn't explain the need for the > > puja in TM, but it very well explains the need of personal > > instruction. Thus an old story (context) is substituted by a > > newer invention of the story, but unfortunately this story > > works only as long, as people don't know the secrets, that > > is the varying mantras over time, and the method of > > selection. In a way, the variety of mantras in TM is just a > > concession to this story, and the remedy is the first > > advanced technique, which is again just one mantra for all. > > Again, I retained my bija mantra. A Sanskrit word was > added to it. That word is what I would refer to as the > advanced technique. Again, you are a minority here. The advanced technique is certainly the WHOLE mantra (or technique as in further advanced techniques only a focal point of attention is added), not just the adjunct. It's even funny that you think that way ;-) > > My feeling is that this 'story' doesn't hold true for the > > internet age, where you can't just keep these things, > > (mantras, method of selection) secret anymore, that is to > > say, the story doesn't work anymore. I find it also > > interesting, that while TM stresses so much on individual > > instruction, > > Just for the initiations, i.e., receiving the bija mantra > and the advanced techniques. > > > that the siddhis clearly mark the way to group > > instruction. People seem to think that their mantra couldn't > > work, unless they receive it in privacy, not the same is > > true for the siddhis, which most people received via > > audiotape. > > I don't think you can call receiving the TM-Sidhis > techniques initiations. Of course they are initiations. Why would you do the puja otherwise. Since the puja is required for learning the siddhis, it is also an initiation. An initiation doesn't have to be into a sanskrit word! > > > > The truth is, as is obvious to any real > > > > TM teacher, that each teacher carries the mantra list > > > > that he got on his course, for the rest of his life. > > > > If anybody got to be a teacher before a certain time, > > > > like the early courses in Rishikesh, he had indeed > > > > only two mantra's to give, and if he got recertified > > > > (I didn't), he still would only give out these two > > > > mantra's today. For decades at least, if not until now, > > > > people get different mantras, according to the mantra > > > > list at the time of their teachers TTC, as the OFFICIAL > > > > TM. And one further truth is, that all people get the > > > > SAME mantra with their first advanced technique. (Their > > > > may have been some exceptions to that rule, that the > > > > original mantra was combined with the adjunct 'namah', > > That was my advanced technique. > > > > > but by and large it was substituted completely, which > > > > also means that after a few advanced techniques, all > > > > share the same mantra.) Now that, and a few other > > > > observations should make it clear, that the policy of > > > > handing out many different mantras, was simply to > > > > obscure and deceive the public (It came about in > > > > Norway after newspapers started to discuss that all TM > > > > meditators had the same mantra). It was never a real > > > > requirement. > > I guess you didn't notice that I used the phrase "TM as > taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." Of course I notice your qualifier. > With that qualification-- > whether or not the use of 16 different bija mantras was > intended to "obscure and deceive the public"--your remarks > are irrelevant to my comments on what Barry had asked. I didn't say they are, but does this mean you agree?
