--- In [email protected], "Ingegerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Ingegerd" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Ingegerd" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Rick Archer > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > on 11/12/05 10:56 PM, wmurphy77 at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], 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/
