--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > Dryly: > > fer shure... > > Let's play pretend: > > Pretend that the AHA scientific statement brings about a > slew of larger-scale studies designed the way this study was: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2693686 > > Where good faith attempts were made to compensate for the > fact that it is virtually impossible to conduct a "double-" > blind study on meditation by ensuring that all test subjects > had the same expectations. > > Let us further pretend that these hypothetical studies show > roughly the same thing: > > on stress/health issues, TM comes in first, mindfulness > practices second and concentrative practices third. > > on mindfulness-related issues, mindfulness comes in first, > TM second, and concentrative practices third. > > Let us finally pretend that a large enough number of these > studies are done in such way that all the reviewers who > thus far have insisted that there's not enough good research > available to make any real determination about the > effectiveness of meditative practices on anything at all, > start to agree with the AHA statement and conclude that > in certain circumstances, TM comes out consistently ahead > -maybe they start to endorse mindfulness for certain things > too, but not the same things that they say TM is good for. > > At THAT point, will you concede that TM IS "in any way > superior to any other meditations out there?"
Lawson, you can "play pretend" all you want, but I'm stuck back on the more fundamental issue that this WHOLE QUESTION is based on the ego and attachment of TMers who are *desperate* to somehow "prove" that what they were told over and over and over and over and over and over for decades is true. That is, that TM *is* superior, or "the best." I honestly have never encountered another form of meditation or tradition that indoctrinates its practitioners to believe this and proselytize this, although in theory they might exist, if some other teacher or tradition is/was as ego-bound and petty as Maharishi. THE WHOLE QUESTION is meaningless, except to those (like yourself) who are trying to "prove" something having (IMO) to do with their *own* superiority in being practitioners of "the best." So go off and "play pretend" on your own. Most of the rest of us DON'T CARE. YOU care. You care a LOT. Given your posting history here and on other forums, this need to "prove" TM's supposed "superiority" or "bestness" is a common and consistently annoying theme, and has been as long as I've known you. Just sayin'... > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@> wrote: > > > > I never used the word pyramid - TM has some beneficial effects and some > > negative effects one of which is a sort of addictive quality that Curtis > > commented on recently - for sure TM is not in any way superior to any other > > meditations out there. > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: "doctordumbass@" <doctordumbass@> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:23 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Inner Peace > > > > > > > > Â > > Can you think of another product with no value, as you seem to suggest, > > that has been around for fifty years, simply because of the marketing > > geniuses behind it? I can't. Has to provide some value. > > > > As for it promising more than it delivers, again, if it were a pyramid > > scheme, as you suggest, it would not have the longevity that it does. Do > > you do TM? > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any time there is a new technology introduced, there are the naysayers > > > > who proclaim it too costly, too crazy, or just plain useless. Just as > > > > with electricity, the automobile, and the cell phone, TM is here to > > > > stay. > > > > > > But is it as popular as the cell phone, electricity and the automobile? > > > > > > Meaning; how many who see the advert say "I gotta get me one of > > > those"? And what percentage keep using it after a few months? > > > > > > > > > > I know its kind of a tough pill to swallow, recognizing that the > > > > technique is not only robust, but continues to grow as well. Perhaps > > > > you want to work on your attachment to these ideas of TM being bad and > > > > wrong, while at the same time, recognizing its inevitable global growth. > > > > > > People are always after something to give them an edge, TM keeps > > > getting recycled via the latest batch of celebrities and is easy to > > > market because of its history. But how many keep doing it compared to > > > all the other things they try? > > > > > > I suspect there is a huge market of seekers who do everything once > > > and finally end up seeing the blandness of the whole self-improvement > > > scene. There is precious little we can do to change ourselves and > > > TM, apart from the very few self-proclaimed enlightened that walk among > > > us, promises so much but delivers so little at the end of the day. You > > > have to be honest to realise the last bit. It isn't what you expected and > > > didn't do half what it claimed - if that. > > > > > > But if you promise people everything, who isn't going to want to try? > > > *That* is the genius of TM marketing, the whole shpeil from the unified > > > field towards perfect health. It's damn clever and that's > > > why it's still around. > > > > > > > > > > I am not saying you have to like it, but you may as well recognize the > > > > reality of it. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > > <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson > > > > > > > <mjackson74@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A beautifully written article about TM and the race to > > > > > > > > inner space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how she gets so many of her facts wrong, isn't it? > > > > > > > You'd almost think she'd learned TM from some independent > > > > > > > who'd gone *way* off the range. Among other things, > > > > > > > according to her, her teacher gave out the mantras at the > > > > > > > end of the course, as a "graduation ceremony," and he wore > > > > > > > a robe during the initiations. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the first law of journalism: Never let the facts get in > > > > > > the way of a good story. > > > > > > > > > > I think you're getting caught up in The Corrector's > > > > > nitpicking and attempts to present the author of this > > > > > piece in a bad light, and as having malevolent intent. > > > > > She (the author), after all, introduces it as a > > > > > remembrance of something that happened (and that > > > > > she was underwhelmed by) *ten years earlier*. It is > > > > > natural that she might remember a few things hazily > > > > > or inaccurately. As for the "end of the course" thang, > > > > > that is how a number of people I've taught thought of > > > > > the two introductory lectures, as "the course," the > > > > > rest being (for them) something else, maybe the part > > > > > where they actually got taught something that cost > > > > > money. :-) This author may have thought similarly. > > > > > > > > > > As for the teacher wearing a robe, I have no explan- > > > > > ations except that 1) she might have memory problems, > > > > > 2) she might be embellishing things for effect, 3) > > > > > she might have been dealing with one of the TM teacher > > > > > nutcases I often had to deal with as a State Coordin- > > > > > ator, who really *did* wear robes and sit on thrones, > > > > > or 4) she might have been dealing with a TM teacher > > > > > similar to Harold Bloomfeld, who was dressed in a > > > > > robe because he was waiting for the drugs he'd > > > > > slipped her to take effect so that he could molest > > > > > her. :-) > > > > > > > > > > Anything is possible. The points of the article are > > > > > sound, and valid -- TM is *hugely* overpriced, and > > > > > simply not worth the price, TM is hyped as special > > > > > and unique when it is anything but, and TM figures > > > > > like MMY and David Lynch are *far* from as admirable > > > > > as the TMO would like them to be. > > > > > > > > > > Just as the author may have skewed things a little > > > > > to make her point, Judy skews things in her way to > > > > > make the author seem malevolent. Anything rather > > > > > than accept the fact that for most people, the > > > > > author's piece strikes a resonance, and captures > > > > > how insanely WEIRD TM and all the hoopla surrounding > > > > > how it is taught are. Judy is so far from that exper- > > > > > ience that she can't remember how WEIRD it all is; > > > > > the author of this piece is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
