I can't comment on any of that, except in the context of TM vs other mantra practices...
The long-term (and sometimes short-term) physiological correlates of TM practice are different than found in published research on other meditation practices, whether or not mantras are invovled. That includes sahaj samadhi meditation, as well as sahaj samadhi yoga, whcih are apparently two different practices. I've yet to see any published research on Chopra's Primordial Sound Meditation, which he conscously modeled after TM. L ---In [email protected], <noozguru@...> wrote : No, the longer mantras are usually given along with the jump start of shaktipat. That's something Maharishi also did. But if shaktipat was required for TM teachers he might have wound up with only a few dozen. Beej mantras can be given by anybody so it was a shortcut. The beejs are more like tilling the soil while the advanced techniques the seed to plant. The beej mantras aren't faster, they're just little sparks of shakti. However they do have some useful effects. Otherwise they wouldn't be used in ayurveda and jyotish. On 04/16/2014 07:29 PM, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... wrote: The long-term outcome of all mantras is that they lead to samadhi. Some work faster than others, which, ironically, is the point of advanced techniques: the dive is more shallow, so the progression to samadhi takes longer. So that doesn't explain the striking difference between TM and other mantra-based methods. It's not the fact that a simple, fast-working mantra was being used. If that was the case, then other practices would show the simplest state of awareness slower, but instead, they show it LESS, the longer people have been practicing. L
