if you are the example we can discount the TM is a reliable way to clean up the mind
________________________________ From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" <doctordumb...@rocketmail.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 8:47 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] "The Smoothie" [was Re: "I create my reality" Yeah, right...] Ok, but it is incorrect to refer to those two different expressions of the physiology, as two different types of enlightenment. Once liberation is achieved, it is exactly the same, no matter what the means. The eternal freedom achieved through the practice of TM, is identical to that achieved through any other means. If it isn't, it isn't Moksha. TM is a very reliable means to clean up the body and mind. However, there are no precursors to enlightenment. It results when we are somehow permanently attuned to, and living, the Grace of life. How we get there is a mystery that reveals itself, once we are established in total freedom. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > I meant "enlightenment" as defined by the physiological changes brought about > by the long-term practice of TM as opposed to "enlightenment" defined by the > physiological changes brought about by the long-term practice of other > techniques, such as mindfulness. > > There's several fundamental differences in how teh nervous system behaves in > long-term TMers and long-term practitioners of mindfulness, and most other > forms of meditation. > > Specifically: most other forms of meditation depress the activity of the > parts of the brain thought to be responsible for sense of self. > > TM enhances those same parts of the brain. > > Most other forms of meditation serve to decouple various parts of the brain > from each other, making them less and less in-synch as time goes on. > > TM has exactly the opposite effect. > > > L > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > I think spare means TM-style enlightenment, because Maharishi was the first > > to symptomize the increasing maturity of the nervous system, leading to > > greater and greater freedom. He attempted to demystify it. > > > > So yeah, liberation is liberation, though it helps to keep the relative > > stages in mind, to differentiate, for example, between the intermediate > > stage of freedom, CC, and the Advanced/Intermediate stage of freedom, UC. > > > > Maharishi always implied that CC, GC and UC are the ingredients, with BC > > being the resulting "Smoothie" - lol! > > > > The t'ing is, as you know (ha-ha!), all of this makes no difference until > > it can be directly tied with experience. Then, it makes perfect sense. > > Though it may not be experienced as linear, it is easy to follow > > Maharishi's progression, as he taught it, from CC to GC to UC, integrating > > greater silence into activity, and then the Buddha on the road gets offed, > > so to speak. > > > > The tricky bit is, prior to these experiences, and the establishment of > > what I will call, "The Smoothie", each stage of consciousness is one more > > thing for the ego to watch and wait for, and attempt to own. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > > > LOL! "TM-style englightenment"? That's one for the books. As > > > differentiated from all other moksha? Come now, the TM technique is > > > nothing more than common beej aksharas long used in vedic astrology and > > > ayurveda as well as probably a few obscure yoga traditions. The advanced > > > technique has more in common with mantras given to the masses (as > > > opposed to disciples of a tradition). > > > > > > Also any real study might want to differentiate between long term > > > meditators who never got the advanced technique and those that did. That > > > wasn't mentioned in the study. Basically you have researches who > > > probably don't know much about yoga at all: blind men describing an > > > elephant. > > > > > > The topic was enlightenment in general and not "TM-style enlightenment" > > > of which there is no such thing. Enlightenment is enlightenment. > > > > > > On 07/17/2013 01:49 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > The topic is TM-style enlightenment, and while you have a point about > > > > parroting, the first report of enlightened TMers was from a > > > > psychologist reporting about 6 of his patients, TMers all, who were > > > > complaining of a permanent depersonalization with no issues other than > > > > intellectual confusion as to why their "I" was completely uninvolved > > > > with thinking, feeling, acting, remembering, etc. > > > > > > > > The report prompted the DMS-IV to add a spiritual/religious exception > > > > to the diagnosis of depersonalization disorder. > > > > > > > > The fact that the patients had forgotten, or didn't make the > > > > connection, between their state and the CC state in TM theory, suggests > > > > that it is a natural progression due to TM practice, rather than > > > > expectations. > > > > > > > > A more recent study looked at non-TMers who happened to be world > > > > champion/national champion athletes (compete at the national level and > > > > consistently score in teh top 10) vs non-champion athletes at the same > > > > level (compete in the same competitions but never break the 50% mark) > > > > and found that the champions tended to score midway between teh > > > > short-term TMers and the enlightened TMers on both their EEG and their > > > > descriptions of self. > > > > > > > > This also supports the theory that the TM-style enlightenment is a > > > > natural thing, leading to similar descriptions of the state, regardless > > > > of your spiritual background (none of the athletes did TM or other > > > > meditation techniques). > > > > > > > > L > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > >> And where's the group that practiced other meditation programs? Also TM > > > >> people start sounding like parrots of stuff they learned from SCI, > > > >> rounding courses, etc. They can't seem to put their experiences in > > > >> their > > > >> own words. > > > >> > > > >> On 07/16/2013 11:39 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > >>> People respond to the interview question "Describe your self," in > > > >>> different ways, depending on the physiological state of their nervous > > > >>> system. > > > >>> > > > >>> Researchers on the effects of Transcendental Meditation asked for > > > >>> people who had been practicing TM who were reporting a certain kind > > > >>> of experience -- ["pure > > > >>> consciousness"](http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/44/2/133.full.pdf) > > > >>> -- as a permanent trait outside of meditation practice, to respond > > > >>> to that question, and correlated their answers with physiological > > > >>> measures. > > > >>> > > > >>> They did the same with 2 other groups of people, people who had never > > > >>> learned TM but wanted to, and people who had been practicing TM for > > > >>> several years, but didn't report permanent pure consciousness outside > > > >>> of meditation or very frequently during. > > > >>> > > > >>> Researchers than correlated the answers to the question with the > > > >>> physiological measures, and established a "Brain Integration Scale," > > > >>> with the > > > >>> [psychological](http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/eeg-of-enlightenment.pdf) > > > >>> and > > > >>> [physiological](http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/brain-integration-progress-report.pdf) > > > >>> measurements of the first group clustered to the right, and the > > > >>> psychological/physiological responses of the no-meditation group to > > > >>> the left. The "non-enlightened" meditators tended to be less > > > >>> experienced than the right-most group, and clustered their > > > >>> responses/EEG in the middle. > > > >>> > > > >>> The responses to the question were roughly in three categories, > > > >>> ranging from very "object referral" to very abstract "self referral": > > > >>> > > > >>> . > > > >>> > > > >>> **Non-TM Group: Self is identified with thoughts, feelings, and > > > >>> actions** > > > >>> > > > >>> N1: I guess I'm open to new experiences, and I tend to appreciate > > > >>> those things that are different > > > >>> > > > >>> N2: I kind of like to forge my own way > > > >>> > > > >>> N3: I am open to change and new ideas. . . I'm an adventuress. I like > > > >>> to go out. . .and experiment with new ideas > > > >>> > > > >>> N4: I tend to appreciate those things that are different, even in my > > > >>> style of dress. I like something usually because its odd or strange > > > >>> or something that other people absolutely wouldnÕt wear > > > >>> > > > >>> N5: I'm happy, caring, helpful, I like people who like to help other > > > >>> people; I hate seeing anyone in trouble > > > >>> > > > >>> . > > > >>> > > > >>> **Short-Term group: Self is the director of thoughts, feelings, and > > > >>> actions** > > > >>> > > > >>> S1: I'm my own awareness. My ability to perceive and be aware. I'm my > > > >>> own potential, my own power, > > > >>> > > > >>> S2: I'm my own capabilities; my ability to learn; my ability to do > > > >>> things. . . in it's essential nature��"my ability to act > > > >>> > > > >>> S3: There are many different levels to who I am. I'm a sister, a > > > >>> daughter, a friend, an athlete, a nature lover, a seeker of the > > > >>> truth. I'm a very spiritual person. I believe that I can do and > > > >>> accomplish anything that I set my mind to > > > >>> > > > >>> S4: I am a little bit more silent, more reserved, and thoughtful than > > > >>> most, with a deep desire to just succeed in all activities and at the > > > >>> same time to develop spiritually very quickly > > > >>> > > > >>> S5: Who I am is who I am inside. How I think. What I believe. How I > > > >>> feel. How I react > > > >>> > > > >>> . > > > >>> > > > >>> **Long-term Group: Self is independent of and underlying thoughts, > > > >>> feelings, and actions** > > > >>> > > > >>> L1: We ordinarily think my self as this age; this color of hair; > > > >>> these hobbies . . . my experience is that my Self is a lot larger > > > >>> than that. It's immeasurably vast. . . on a physical level. It is not > > > >>> just restricted to this physical environment > > > >>> > > > >>> L2: It's the ‘‘I am-ness.’’ It's my Being. There's just a > > > >>> channel underneath that's just underlying everything. It's my essence > > > >>> there and it just doesn't stop where I stop. . . by ‘‘I,’’ I > > > >>> mean this 5 ft. 2 person that moves around here and there > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> L3: I look out and see this beautiful divine Intelligence. . . you > > > >>> could say in the sky, in the tree, but really being expressed through > > > >>> these things. . . and these are my Self > > > >>> > > > >>> L3: I experience myself as being without edges or content. . . beyond > > > >>> the universe. . . all-pervading, and being absolutely thrilled, > > > >>> absolutely delighted with every motion that my body makes. With > > > >>> everything that my eyes see, my ears hear, my nose smells. There's a > > > >>> delight in the sense that I am able to penetrate that. My > > > >>> consciousness, my intelligence pervades everything I see, feel and > > > >>> think > > > >>> > > > >>> L5: When I say ’’I’’ that's the Self. There's a quality that > > > >>> is so pervasive about the Self that I'm quite sure that the > > > >>> ‘‘I’’ is the same ‘‘I’’ as everyone else's > > > >>> ‘‘I.’’ Not in terms of what follows right after. I am tall, I > > > >>> am short, I am fat, I am this, I am that. But the ‘‘I’’ part. > > > >>> The ‘‘I am’’ part is the same ‘‘I am’’ for you and me > > > >>> > > > >>> . > > > >>> > > > >>> . > > > >>> > > > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > >>>> This is the crux of what enlightenment is about. Those who are > > > >>>> experiencing it don't experience localized awareness unless it is > > > >>>> demanded (like a bill or tax collector comes knocking). The > > > >>>> experience > > > >>>> is like "you don't exist." > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 07/16/2013 10:17 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > > >>>>>> So, *you* don't exist? I have the hardest time with this concept. > > > >>>>>> *Who* posted what you posted? > > > >>>>>> ________________________________ > > > >>>>>> From: "doctordumbass@" doctordumbass@ > > > >>>>>> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 10:01 AM > > > >>>>>> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: "I create my reality" Yeah, right... > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Her: > > > >>>>>> Beliefs (b) + Thoughts (t) + feelings (f) = Internal Reality (IR) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Circumstances (c) + people (p) = External Reality (ER) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Me: > > > >>>>>> Silence = (Internal) Reality > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> All the stuff moving around in the silence = (External) Reality > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> That's the difference. She is still operating on the assumption > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>>>>> *she* primarily exists. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> Doc, I think she addresses both of these issues when she writes > > > >>>>> about noticing thoughts and feelings rather than trying to change > > > >>>>> them, > > > >>>>> get rid of them, etc. I think in the Buddhist tradition noticing is > > > >>>>> a > > > >>>>> way of quieting the mind. And she doesn't say to only notice one > > > >>>>> kind of > > > >>>>> thought or feeling. I don't see how you and she disagree. > > > >>>>>>> ________________________________ > > > >>>>>>> From: "doctordumbass@" doctordumbass@ > > > >>>>>>> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:03 AM > > > >>>>>>> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: "I create my reality" Yeah, right... > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I personally think she is full of it. *Of course* our thoughts > > > >>>>> create our reality. Not just the positive, affirmative ones, but > > > >>>>> all of > > > >>>>> the thoughts. > > > >>>>>>> Most people have a non-stop mind, like yours. It is the spinning > > > >>>>>>> and > > > >>>>> looping of energy that creates most of the resonance in a non-stop > > > >>>>> mind. > > > >>>>> This then leads to their reality, WHETHER THAT IS THEIR INTENTION, > > > >>>>> OR > > > >>>>> NOT. > > > >>>>>>> The issue she is talking about is owning certain thoughts and > > > >>>>> intentions, and subconsciously disavowing others. But she is > > > >>>>> clueless > > > >>>>> enough about her inner state of mind, resulting in this ego-based > > > >>>>> drivel. > > > >>>>>>> More excellent evidence that you don't know yourself very well, if > > > >>>>> you agreed with this half-baked article. > > > >>>>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> A friend posted this to another forum. I do not know > > > >>>>>>>> the author or even of her, but I thought much of it > > > >>>>>>>> was a breath of fresh air in the often stale cyber- > > > >>>>>>>> chatrooms of New Age thought. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Let's see what people here think of it: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>> http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/07/your-thoughts-do-not-create-your-\ > > > >>>>> reality-stupid/ > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
