Hi, No, I was not a TM teacher. When I reached the point of going on TTC I was disenchanted with the org, so it didn't happen. I worked for the TMO three different times for about three years, total - did the sids also, but no advanced techniques, or any of the stuff from the last 30 years.
Yeah I get what you are saying, and agree that the most important distinction is that the 'end state' if you will, keeps growing. Paradoxically, that sustainability is one element that defines it, unlike the perfect mood/thought/bank account or or other static symbol, that the ego associates with enlightenment, prior to consciousness being established in silence. --- In [email protected], 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. > > 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. > > > > >
