--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> 
> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the point here is "different strokes for
> > > different folks". All of us that grew-up in the TMO
> > > just blindly accepted that TM was good for everybody
> > > and that TM was the "best" technique around. Of course
> > > this is a very immature position. Many people enjoy TM
> > > and seek nothing else. Others give TM and the siddhi
> > > program an honest shot for several years or decades
> > > and then move on to something else. What's wrong with
> > > that? If the intent is realization and you're stuck in
> > > traffic with your sadhana why not do something that
> > > you're drawn to?
> > 
> > I completely agree with that. Any spiritual practice is 
> > better than none. It was more about the made up technique 
> > and side effects stuff that I objected to. Including stuff 
> > directly from God, *every* technique is made up.
> Yes, but some of them have had more time on the 
> "test track" than others.  :-)
> Seriously, as far as we can tell, Maharishi made
> up TM, changed it a few times along the way, based
> on trial and error, and settled on what we think of
> as TM today. The siddhis were even more a process
> of trial and error, with the guinea pigs being the
> folks on the first few courses.
> Is it any *wonder* that there were some side effects?
> Compare and contrast to techniques that have been
> passed down within the same tradition for decades
> or centuries. They might have *been* equally made
> up in the beginning, and equally subject to a process
> of trial and error to work all the bugs out, but the
> trial period is a great deal longer. And in the case
> of the traditions I'm speaking about, they actually
> seem to *care* if someone develops a negative reaction
> or side effect to one of the techniques they teach.
> The TM organization's approach has always been to
> blame the person exhibiting the negative result and,
> if it doesn't go away on its own, to either hide the
> poor victim in a basement or get them off the course
> or out of town and thus away from scrutiny.
> It is my contention that the *only* reason people
> believe that TM is "100% life supporting" is that
> they were *told* that, over and over and over, for
> years. *By* the people who all along were carefully 
> hiding any negative side effects.

To me, the great thing about TM is its effortlessness and 
simplicity...AND universality because of these two traits.  Indeed, 
I love the fact that TM does NOT work to the extent that effort is 
put into the process.

And that's why I believe it to be so effective.

How many of these other techniques, Barry, ar effortless?  In 
response to the claim you once made on amt, I once asked you to name 
those other techniques but, at the time, you were unable to.

Could you do so now?

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to