Are you kidding? The schism has already taken place - there are former TM teachers all over the place who either teach their own brand of meditation or teach TM without the Movement and its "re-certification" which in my opinion was one of the sleazier moves M ever made - making tried and true teachers pay to get re-certified. I mean, Jerry Jarvis needs to get re-certified? March-y must-a needed to get one of his nephews a new gold Bently for his birthday.
--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > >> --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > >> <anartaxius@> wrote: > >> > >>> 'Most people find this much harder to do than the simple mantra > >>> practice; so why bother? The answer to that question has many sides to > >>> it. I will only discuss one here. But before I can do that, we need to > >>> first clarify an even deeper way in which mantra and mindfulness are > >>> related. Because mantra is a repetitive rhythm, it sets up periodic waves > >>> or vibrations in ones consciousness. Let me try to explain this with a > >>> somewhat crude metaphor. You are probably familiar with hand-held > >>> electrical vibrators that are used for massage. Imagine the effect of > >>> holding such a vibrator in contact with the surface of a pool of water. > >>> It would impart very regular pleasing patterns of ripples throughout the > >>> water. Focusing on those patterns of ripples could easily take you into a > >>> state of relaxation. This is one facet of how mantra works. Its > >>> repetitive nature sets up rhythmic ripples throughout the meditator's > >>> whole consciousness. The meditator then focuses on the regularity of > >>> those ripples and rides them into deeper and deeper levels of relaxation, > >>> concentration and integration. > > > > > > Xeno, are you a TM-teacher ? I ask because just as laudable the attempt > > > from the above Buddhist to explain what TM is and how it works, anyone > > > with direct experience knows the above is incorrect. But I applaude that > > > at least he tries. > > Well, this is not how TM was explained to me, but it is someone else's > attempt to understand it. This idea is nice, but I would say the part where > he says the meditator 'focuses' is not correct. Most people who have not done > TM tend to make that error of assuming there is some kind of focus. Actually > there is, coming back to the mantra, but the aim is to make any adjustment in > meditation as non focused as possible to avoid concentration, which you learn > how from checking. However the idea of regularity of the ripples riding > inward seems a plausible description, but it happens automatically, not by > focus. > > Another mindfulness advocate, Adyashanti also makes a similar error in > describing mantra meditation (he does not seem to write directly of TM), yet > interestingly when he describes meditation, it sounds nearly exactly like TM > in being non-concentrative, relaxed, and letting go, just minus a mantra, and > he does not mind if people are using a mantra, he does not seem to mind if > people are doing different kinds of meditation as long as there are results. > > There is always difficulty describing a mental process that is entirely > experiential. In 1955 MMY referred to TM as 'mind control' though of course > he did not mean control by virtue of force, but by virtue of a process that > allows the mind to naturally collect itself. On the outer level however, in > the TMO today and of yesterday, we see a lot of practices of mind control - > not meditation - but systems that attempt to force conformity to various > kinds of behaviour. Reminds me of George Orwell's novel 1984 with far more > than a passing resemblance. > > I have this idea that the 'purity of the teaching' is really just knowing how > to completely let go, something every great spiritual sage seems to know, but > strange to say, there seems to be a lot of structure surrounding getting > someone to experience how. But another factor seems to arise in spiritual > movements as a result of that necessity of some kind of structured teaching. > And that is what I call 'purity of the learning'. Somehow, spiritual > organisations deteriorate in a way that involves seeing learners as objects > which must conform to a certain view of how they understand a teaching, and > that view is the view that 'the management' collectively holds to be true. As > time goes on, if the practice is working, people become freer on the inside, > but find the environment of the spiritual philosophy becoming more and more > rigid and irrational and controlling. This is what a lot of meditators feel > about the TMO, TM is great but the TMO - yuk! > > At some point this process of increasing rigidity and control implodes into > the central tenets and practices for which the organisation was created and > they become corrupted. So far TM, which is so very standarised in instruction > has escaped this process. The increasing focus the organisation has on the > memory and person of MMY though I think is a danger sign. Look what happened > to Jesus. We do not know what he taught exactly. We know how the generations > that followed viewed him and his mission, and if you compare the remaining > records of what he supposedly said with the organisations that exist in his > name today, the discrepancy is incredible. > > It is said in the Bible that Jesus would baptise one into spirit, not water, > as John before him. So what could that have been? Maybe something like TM. If > that was there then, 2,000 years ago, it certainly is not taught now. Long > gone. But you do see mini revivals of the idea with small splinter churches > today that talk of Christ Consciousness, and practice meditation techniques, > but you do not see this in the major churches where such ideas get crushed by > management. > > I really feel the Catholic Church is a good model to view to how the TMO is > shaping up and transforming over time. Now the Mormon church, which is about > 150 years old, already has splintered into about six different sects. The > movement was mostly monolithic when MMY controlled the reigns, but now that > he is gone, when will the first schism happen? I certainly do not know, but I > suspect it will be soon. >
