--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > <snip> The bottom line is that "TM" is just a brand name for a > > made-up technique of meditation that is (in my opinion > > as a former TM teacher) no better than any other tech- > > nique of meditation, less effective than many, and more > > likely to produce negative side effects than most. > > I must respectfully disagree with you there. I personally > tried a few different technicques before learning TM, > which is the only one which enabled me to unequivocally > transcend, easily and on a regular basis.
I have absolutely no problem with you making that statement, and it being completely true. I had a different experience. My statement is based on my experience. > As to the side effects, I think you'd find that for any > technique where transcendence is as regular as with TM. I disagree. I have personally experienced types of meditation in which FOR ME, transcendence was FAR more regular than TM ever produced, and which pro- duced no undesirable side effects at all, in me or in my many friends who were also practicing them. > The theory espoused about the practice, that it unwinds > stresses in the body, rings true for me during the time > I've done the technique. It doesn't for me, but it's fine to disagree on this. > For some I would guess, those stresses are deep enough > that they don't release very easily. Probably a pretty > common event for anyone doing spiritual practice for > enough years. But *not* common in some traditions, traditions that employ techniques of meditation that really *do* go back centuries, as opposed to (sorry to say it, but it's right there in the forward to TM movement publi- cations) made up by Maharishi and presented as a "revival" of ancient knowledge. I'm really not playing "better/best" here. TM is *remarkably* easy to learn and in my opinion effec- tive in many cases. It's just that I really *have* experienced other forms of meditation that I found more effective personally and -- looking at the spectrum of people practicing them in my presence -- more free of undesirable side effects. If I had to guess (and a guess is all it is), I would suspect that these techniques had had more "field testing" over the centuries. If the TM movement was still interested in actually teaching TM, at a reasonable cost, I'd say "Good for them." But I would *not* be able to say, based on my own experience, either that it was the most effective style of meditation I had ever experienced, or the most problem-free. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
