--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote:
>
> Well my problem was that having been a TM teacher and I
> think you were too, I *never* heard the term "TM Style
> Enlightenment".  That's something Lawson made up and we
> know Lawson was *not* a TM teacher.  And I think he made
> it up to support his argument.  Lawson, please don't do 
> that.  You're smart guy and shouldn't need to do such
> things.

Your "problem" is a straw man. Lawson didn't pretend it
was a TM-Teacher Term Complete with Capitalized Words.
It was an informal descriptive phrase he composed to
clarify something *you* had misunderstood concerning
what he'd posted, and he defined it precisely:

"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."

DrD feels this isn't a valid distinction, which is a
reasonable objection, whether accurate or not. Insisting
nastily that Lawson shouldn't have used that phrase 
because *you* never heard it is a thoroughly unreasonable
objection.



> 
> I've always found that the different levels as MMY defined them just 
> seems to confuse TM'ers and it's sort of irrelevant anyway. Once a 
> meditator (regardless of the technique) notices they still are 
> experiencing the transcendent coming out of meditation and carrying 
> through activity then they are on the road to moksha which is how many 
> other paths define it.  You can call "moksha" enlightenment if you want 
> but the word "enlightenment" carries a lot of implications to westerners 
> that the abstract Sanskit term "moksha" does not.  It's a growing state 
> which was what MMY was saying and other teachers say.  In fact I would 
> submit there are TM'ers who are in CC but so confused because they are 
> looking for something flashier (I guess celestial visions) rather than 
> just an underlying silence or that experience that you don't exist 
> unless called upon to localize awareness.
> 
> The problem with carrying on research between different schools is that 
> many of  the more traditional schools don't give a damn about research.  
> They just make their techniques available and if it works for the 
> student fine and if it doesn't feel free to move on to something else.  
> And no need to validate by research.  If there is any difference between 
> TM and other techniques it would be because of the lack of omkara which 
> would most likely produce a different brain activation pattern than a 
> technique without.  But that's only a difference and different mantras 
> too should produce different patterns.
> 
> On 07/18/2013 05:47 AM, doctordumbass@... wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to