--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ingegerd" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ingegerd" 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ingegerd" 
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer 
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > on 11/12/05 10:56 PM, wmurphy77 at 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> on 11/12/05 9:33 PM, wmurphy77 at 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >>> To think that the primary technique of TM would EVER 
> take 
> > > a 
> > > > > back
> > > > > > > seat
> > > > > > >>> to Haglin's pseudo-scientific Siddhi's program is 
> amazing 
> > > to 
> > > > > me.
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> Why are you attributing ownership or authorship of the 
> > Sidhi
> > > > > > > program to
> > > > > > >> Hagelin? Hagelin wasn't a major player in the movement 
> when
> > > > > > > Maharishi came
> > > > > > >> out with the sidhi program. Sounds to me like you're 
> > trying 
> > > to
> > > > > > > shift blame
> > > > > > >> away from Maharishi. Common mistake. He calls the 
shots 
> > and 
> > > > > always
> > > > > > > has. Deal
> > > > > > >> with it.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'm implying that MMY has swallowed Hagelin's research 
> > > > > as 'proof'!  I
> > > > > > > think the jury is still out as to the relative numbers 
> > > required 
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > create such an effect. I realize that it was at the 
> > > suggestion
> > > > > > > of 'another' yogi (apparently) that MMY came out with 
> this 
> > > > > totally
> > > > > > > premature yogic flying, etc. MMY really thinks you only 
> > need 
> > > the
> > > > > > > square root of 1% of the population (yada, yada) to 
> shift 
> > > > trends 
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the world...BASED ON HAGELIN'S RESEARCH! Who's the Yogi 
> and 
> > > > > who's the
> > > > > > > chela now???  Hummm, think about it, it explains 
> everything!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The way I heard the story, it was the Shankaracharya, or 
> the 
> > > guy 
> > > > > MMY was
> > > > > > propping up as the Shankaracharya (I can't begin to keep 
> the 
> > > > > details of that
> > > > > > whole mess straight) who suggested to MMY, during a quick 
> > trip 
> > > to 
> > > > > India
> > > > > > during the Fiuggi course, that he offer something more to 
> the 
> > > > > Westerners. So
> > > > > > Maharishi pulled out a copy of the Yoga Sutras and began 
> > > > > experimenting on
> > > > > > half a dozen of the M-group types around him (I got this 
> > > account 
> > > > > from one of
> > > > > > them). The sidhis didn't come out until 1977. The 1% 
> effect 
> > > came 
> > > > > out when
> > > > > > Domash was reigning physicist in 1974. There was a 
> campaign 
> > in 
> > > > the 
> > > > > UK in
> > > > > > which one of the slogans was "you can be one of the 99 if 
> you 
> > > can 
> > > > > get one of
> > > > > > your friends to be the one." Square root of 1% came out 
> soon 
> > > > after 
> > > > > the
> > > > > > sidhis, and Domash or Hagelin was physicist at that 
point. 
> It 
> > > was 
> > > > > still
> > > > > > Domash until about 1980. Anyway, I think the theory 
> preceded 
> > > the 
> > > > > research.
> > > > > > In other words, the theory of 1% or square root of 1% was 
> > > bandied 
> > > > > about
> > > > > > before any societal testing was done. And Maharishi spent 
> > > > > countless hours
> > > > > > discussing this and lecturing about it. It's not like it 
> was 
> > > > > foisted on him
> > > > > > by cunning physicists. As always, he was calling the 
> shots. 
> > He 
> > > > was 
> > > > > tickled
> > > > > > pink to get a theory that would absolve him from having 
to 
> > get 
> > > > 10% 
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > world's population meditating, or even 1%. Anyway, I 
don't 
> > > think 
> > > > > this
> > > > > > particular point has much to do with the failure of the 
> > > movement. 
> > > > > Although
> > > > > > the advent of the sidhis sure scared off a lot of 
> respectable 
> > > > > folks who were
> > > > > > beginning to take it seriously.
> > > > > 
> > > > > A group of Norwegian TM-Teachers, including me, did learn 
> the 
> > TM-
> > > > > Sidhi-Techniques in 1978 directly from MMY, for free. MMY 
> gave 
> > > us 
> > > > > the techniques and explained how they worked. Nandkishore 
> was 
> > > > > sometimes with him. Once we asked a question to 
Nandkishore: 
> If 
> > > we 
> > > > > do not have time to do the whole program, what should we 
> give 
> > > > > priority". His answer was: "The Asanas and the Pranayama". 
I 
> > did 
> > > > not 
> > > > > understand why he did not say "The TM-Sidhi-Techniques". 
> Every 
> > > > month 
> > > > > we did send our experiences with the TM-Sidhi-Program to 
> MMY, 
> > > not 
> > > > > always telling the truth. It was some kind of Mass-
Hypnosis -
>  
> > > > always 
> > > > > waiting to fly in the air. But we did not pay for the 
> courses - 
> > > so 
> > > > > maybe we were among the students that MMY tried out the 
> program 
> > > > > with. 
> > > > > Ingegerd
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Huh, I would think it would be TM first, not asanas, since 
> that 
> > is 
> > > > what people were taught prior to the sidhis..
> > > >
> > > What you think is one thing - what Nandkishore said is another 
> > > thing. I was wondering myself why he did not mention TM and TM-
> > Sidhi-
> > > technique.
> > > Ingegerd
> > >
> > 
> > Perhaps because he thought you meant what priorty to give to the 
> > program other than TM? At that point, perhaps he and MMY weren't 
> sure 
> > how effective the TM-Sidhis would be while asanas and pranayama 
> were 
> > definitely worth doing as a priority. Of course "priority" can 
> mean 
> > what you do first, not what is most important...
> 
> The question was quite clear, including the whole program with TM 
> and everything. It will only be speculations about what he meant. 
> But the answer was that if we did not have time for the whole 
> program, at least do Asanas and Pranayama. Maybe Nandkishore 
belongs 
> to another Indian Tradition where Asanas and Pranayama is the most 
> important?? Maybe other things. The first thing - I skipped when I 
> was short of time was Asanas and Pranayama - and gave the priority 
> to TM and TM-Sidhi. My experience is that the effect of TM is 
> stronger when I do Asanas and Pranayama.
> Ingegerd
> >
>

That is my experience also, actually, though the TM-Sidhis seem 
plenty powerful in the long run. There's also the issue of group 
program vs individual program. Perhaps when done in large groups, the 
TM-Sidhis are more important in the short term than asanas while when 
you're doing it alone, asanas and pranayama are of more 
individual/short-term benefit.







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to