--- 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. > > > > >