Thank you Judy and Curtis and Xeno and Ann - interesting conversation.  It 
seems like the individual experiences with TM over periods of time could, 
potentially, differ between individuals based, in part, on differing 
physiologies, among many other things.

Can I always tell the difference between fact and POV when it comes to TM 
discussions?  No, but because I have no experience with it, I just ingest it 
(when I read it) and let it be.

Do I take Curtis's posts as his point of view?

Of course I do!  Smile.  

> From: authfriend <>
>Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 1:05 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM kid expelled for pot but the foreign kids get 
>no punishment.
>--- In, "curtisdeltablues" 
><curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
>> - In, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
>> >
>> > --- In, "curtisdeltablues" 
>> > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > --- In, "emilymae.reyn" <emilymae.reyn@> 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Does meditation work to balance out the chemical makeup of
>> > > > one's physiology?  Does it release our natural feel good 
>> > > > chemicals within the body?  Or, maintain balanced levels
>> > > > of serotonin, dopamine, etc.
>> > > 
>> > > My experience with TM meditation and its associated practices
>> > > is that it is a way to hijack our usual brain reward system
>> > > for achievement in our lives.
>> > 
>> > Maybe this should say, " is a way to hijack my usual
>> > brain reward system for achievement in my life," since this
>> > is your personal experience.
>> I believe your brain and mine are similar in this regard.
>> If you transcend into what Maharishi called bliss 
>> consciousness you are giving your brain such a high
>> reward it forgets everything else.
>During meditation, yes.
>> This is just Maharishi's teaching.  But you raise an
>> interesting point that perhaps there is a difference
>> between the kind of brain that would go into a sidhaland
>> or Purusha and someone who has integrated TM into their
>> life the way you have.
>Yes, "perhaps" there is, TM being for householders and
>> > > And this was Maharishi's stated goal, fulfillment divorced
>> > > from achievement.
>> > 
>> > When did he say this? Do you have a quote? Was this one
>> > of the "secret teachings" just for teachers? Because I
>> > sure don't remember having heard him say it.
>> It is a core part of his message I don't know how you
>> missed it.
>Yeah, I don't think so, Curtis. Certainly I didn't hear
>it during *my* three days' checking, and I never heard it
>subsequently, either. I think you must be misinterpreting
>something, or expressing it badly.
>> We go to bliss consciousness and establish ourselves in
>> that to give us complete fulfillment which bypasses the
>> whole action for achievement for fulfillment cycle. It is
>> actually taught in 3 days checking.
>You didn't include "action" in what you said above. With
>"action," you might invoke "Do less and accomplish more/
>Do nothing and accomplish everything" to make your point.
>But what you said to start with sounds as if you meant
>there was no *accomplishment* involved.
>And then there's the old "200 percent of life," and the
>idea that you don't meditate for the sake of meditation
>but for fulfillment *in activity*.
>The impression you've been conveying is that you just
>sit around in bliss rather than accomplishing anything.
>But that would not be an accurate picture of Maharishi's
>teaching (at least not his teaching to the Great TM
>> Where I differ with his teaching is that he thinks this
>> automatically makes people better at and more dynamic
>> in activity and I don't.
>Well, reasonable people could disagree on this point.
>> > Anybody else remember Maharishi saying this was his goal?
>> > 
>> > > If you keep mediating you cultivate the mind to trigger
>> > > highly pleasurable states. It becomes very addictive.
>> > > Many meditators show signs of extreme irritation if they
>> > > miss a mediation once they get hooked on it just like
>> > > any other addict.
>> > 
>> > How many meditators show this? What percentage would you
>> > say? And how have you determined this?
>> I lived with thousands of meditators while in the movement.
>> I have seen many meditators reactions to missing meditation.
>> Discussed many with my own TM students. I have discussed the
>> experiences of dozens of people who quit TM as I did.  As
>> well as some who have gone back and forth as I have.  But
>> your question is valid.  And I don't have an answer for you,
>> I am just presenting my view and believe it does not only
>> apply to me.
>OK. When you're addressing someone who has no experience
>of living or working with TMers (Emily in this case), it's
>really important for you to be clear that your assertions
>reflect your own views and beliefs, and not necessarily
>established fact.
>> Skip afternoon meditation for a week and see how tired you
>> get around meditation time.  When you are conditioned to
>> get this state your brains begins to need it.  After a week
>> or so off TM you mind recovers and you no longer feel tired
>> in the afternoon.
>> When I get addicted to TM I crave the state.  YMMV.
>MMDV. Or rather, I've never gotten "addicted" to TM.
>> > In what follows, you shift back and forth from statements
>> > about your personal experience to general statements as to
>> > how TM affects people in general. With regard to the latter,
>> > could you explain how you've determined that these are
>> > effects common to everyone who practices TM? (Or meditation
>> > in general, depending on which you mean, which you don't
>> > always specify.)
>> This is my current working model of understanding.  I don't
>> doubt that others will see it differently. I believe that
>> we all share a similar physiology. Your criticism could
>> equally apply to anyone making any claim about what
>> meditation does for people.  I am trying to explain what I
>> believe is the underlying mechanism in the brain functioning.
>> It is my alternative model to Maharishi's.
>Yes, I understand this. Emily might not unless you're
>explicit that it's your own opinion. I'm suggesting you
>haven't been explicit enough about that.
>> > I ask because none of what you describe resembles my
>> > own experience.
>> I don't know how many times you have gone off and on TM.
>> This insight came to me after I had done that a few times.
>I've also been "off and on" several times.
>> But your general question of what part of this is just
>> personal seems valid.  That is true of most inductive
>> reasoning.  How man examples are enough?
>Right, and if you can't quantify, it's especially important
>to note that it's *in your observation*.
>> But people may have completely different experiences with
>> TM just as all brains don't react to cocaine the same.
>> Some people dive in and become addicts and some say "that
>> was annoying".
>And everything in between.
>I think "addiction" is a tricky term to use. It's handy when
>you want to discourage people from trying TM or suggest
>there's something dangerous about it, because the term is
>usually pejorative; but then there's the whole "positive
>addiction" theory to be considered.
>Of course, when you cite cocaine addiction as if it were
>similar to "addiction" to TM, your intention to load
>your argument becomes obvious.
>> I appreciate your points though and will give them more thought.  I am just 
>> trying to figure this out and this is what I have so far. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > So IMO mediation can become a problem like any other form of hijacking 
>> > > the pleasure states, meant to reward our species for doing things that 
>> > > promote our survival or express our creativity. I believe there is no 
>> > > neuronal free lunch, every pleasure state has a cost. 
>> > > 
>> > > Of course this is a highly heretical view in circles where regular 
>> > > meditation and more meditation are both seen as only positives.  But for 
>> > > me the balance is trickier.  I use meditation when I need some of what 
>> > > it does for my brain, but regular meditation just leads to me getting 
>> > > hooked on the mental states it produces. And for me these states do not 
>> > > produce my optimum functioning.
>> > > 
>> > > They are as advertized, very charming to our minds.  But they can easily 
>> > > lead to an end in themselves since our brains are inherently lazy and 
>> > > getting the quick reward is neurologically preferred. Unfortunately that 
>> > > does not lead to my fullest creative potential any more than hitting the 
>> > > slot lever again and again.  Although they say that meditation is a 
>> > > preparation for activity, and I don't doubt that for really impulsive 
>> > > people it is a real benefit, for people like me who have perhaps 
>> > > cultivated this functioning a bit too much, it can become a real 
>> > > distraction.  I get a lot more done with my eyes opened! 
>> > > 
>> > > This understanding is still just a work in progress.  I am fascinated 
>> > > that some like Barry maintain that other forms of meditation do no 
>> > > exhibit some of what I see as downsides of TM's passive bliss states 
>> > > style.
>> >

Reply via email to