--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the > > same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, > > no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the > > same pattern in its most extreme form. > > > > In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a > > shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you > > become more experienced. > > > > In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards > > to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and > > can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. > > Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two > paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* > are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never > gets deeper or more profound) with "Pure Consciousness." > I doubt that scientists would.
Wow, same thought I had. If the pattern is the same, and doesn't change with longer TM practice, what happened to the idea that with regular practice you release more and more stress, which in turn leads to more clear transcendence? If the meditation is the same and doesn't change, (or those periods of supposed transcendence / relaxation), why the need to be regular at all? Why learn expensive advanced techniques, who are supposed to deepen or widen the transcendence experience, to have it along with subtle activity? With your argument, Lawson, you also wouldn't trust advanced techniques, because they would alter the original experience, or in case they don't, they are completely worthless. > As for "not trusing non-TM teachers," I can say that TM > teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they > were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far > as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have > any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They > know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing > about any of the others. They are actually *prevented* > from learning about any of the others, under pain of > banishment. > > Just sayin'... If you dispute this, cite things that > were taught to you on your TM Teacher Training course. > Oh, that's right, you can't. Again, just sayin'... > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@> wrote: > > > > > > I would suggest forgetting whatever you learned with TM and just become > > > aware of the one having the thought - of course its possible - it who you > > > really are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: sound of stillness <soundofstillness@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:03 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? > > > > > > > > > Â > > > I was listening to a meditation teacher (not a TM teacher) who when asked > > > about thoughts, gave the instruction . . . > > > > > > "Become aware of the one who is having the thoughts." > > > > > > Is it possible to become 'aware' of the one who is having a thought? > > > > > > Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? > > > > > > If not, if 'aware-ness' is always the 'subject', then what is the > > > distinction between the instruction the meditation teacher gave and > > > 'awareness becoming aware of itself', a.k.a. 'self-referral awareness'. > > > > > > Was the meditation teacher asking the student to 'do' something that > > > isn't possible? > > > > > > Michael > > > > > >
