> > > Which goes back to MY point that any "theory" that 
> > > attempts to explain TM must preserve the anything 
> > > goes/effortlessness nature of the technique, or 
> > > it morphs into something else.
> > 
> > No, it doesn't. One could still be practicing TM 
> > *exactly* as taught and believe what Vaj and I 
> > believe. You are confusing theory with practice,
> > and the dogma one believes in with the actuality
> > of the practice one believes it *about*. I could
> > believe what I believe and still practice TM 
> > exactly as it was taught to me; if you can't,
> > that's your problem, not mine.
> 
> So you believe that you can separate yourself into an 
> innocent practioner who disagrees with the explanation 
> that any experience is valid during TM practice and a 
> theoretician who does NOT believe this?

Absolutely. You can't?

> So for you, theory, in this context, wouldn't interfere 
> with practice, even though your theory directly contradicts 
> the instructions?

If I felt that the practice as taught was valuable and
I wanted the benefits of it as taught, I would be able
to practice it as taught even though I didn't believe
ONE WORD of the theory behind it.

I have done exactly this MANY TIMES when attending
teachings given by different spiritual traditions.
I may believe NONE of the theory behind the tech-
niques they teach, but when it comes to practicing
them in the group as they are taught, I practice
them *exactly* as taught. Otherwise I am not giving
them a fair trial.

This is the process of following the instructions,
evaluating the results, and THEN deciding whether
the theory makes sense. You seem to be saying that
one has to buy the theory FIRST in order to be
able to follow the instructions.

<snip>
> > And that's just FINE, dude. I have never said any
> > differently. I'm not trying to SELL you my theory.
> > It's MINE. It doesn't affect you in any way, unless
> > you allow it to. 
> 
> I don't accept the theory. You DO accept the theory. I 
> claim that your insistence that one experience during 
> TM is automatically better than another taints the practice.

Exactly HOW? Read my lips again: I DON'T PRACTICE TM.
What's it gonna "taint?" 

YOU don't agree with my theory. Is it going to "taint*
your meditation?

Think this shit through, dude. What you're arguing is
that belief drives experience.

> > > > There's a difference. Believing in a different theory
> > > > doesn't mean that the other person is flawed, or that
> > > > they didn't hear and understand the same things you
> > > > did when you were listening to the TM teachers who
> > > > were parroting what they were told to say. It just
> > > > means that the other person has chosen not to take
> > > > what they were told as some kind of cosmic truth, the
> > > > *only* way that things could be described. Vaj is 
> > > > expressing an opinion; he's entitled to that opinion.
> > > > And *his* opinion has no effect whatsoever on you 
> > > > or your own opinions unless you allow it to.
> > > 
> > > Sure, whatever, but once you start assigning value 
> > > judgements to one particular experience over another, 
> > > you're no longer practicing TM.
> > 
> > NOT NECESSARILY. Vaj, as far as I know, DOES NOT 
> > PRACTICE TM. Neither do I. What we believe about
> > meditation and what makes a meditation session
> > effective doesn't affect TM in the slightest.
> 
> How would you know, not being a TMer any more, by 
> your own admission?

Admission?  Are you suggesting I just "confessed"
to something?  :-)

I *don't* "know." I have beliefs, based on the full
range of meditation techniques I have studied. 

You are still reacting as if I'm trying to SELL you
something because I believe differently than you do.

> > Are you trying to say that your mind is so weak
> > that if someone *else* suggests a different way
> > of looking at meditation and how it works, that
> > is going to affect how *you* meditate?  :-)
> 
> If I accept it, sure. Innocence is lost when you 
> start assigning value judgements. That you don't 
> see this is quite telling.

That you do is even more telling, IMO.

You are asserting that belief in how TM works
is *essential* to it working properly. Has it
occurred to you that this is directly contrary
to everything you were ever told about TM?

> > It's THEORY, dude, and furthermore a theory pro-
> > posed by two people who do *not* practice TM and
> > probably never will again. We are not trying to
> > SELL you our theory or "convert" you to believing
> > in it. It's just FINE for you to believe what you
> > believe today. You are reacting as if by even
> > mentioning our theories we are putting the 
> > sanctity and purity of *your* meditation in
> > some kind of jeapardy.
> 
> Nope, but I argue that theory and practice during TM 
> are inseparable. 

In other words, in your opinion, belief in the
theory of how TM works is *essential* for it to
be practiced properly. Did I get this right?

> You can practice TM without ANY kind of theory, but 
> any acceptable theory from a TM technique perspective 
> needs to explain things in terms of the practice -- 
> that is, the innocence of the technique.

But it's just THEORY, man. And, according to the
very way TM is taught, *not* essential to the
proper practice of TM. In every TM lecture they
emphasize that you don't have to believe in 
*anything* for TM to work properly. And yet here
you are stating the opposite...that "proper belief"
is *essential* to practicing it properly.

> > Your position seems to be based on the idea that
> > different theories of how meditation works might
> > have "cooties" and somehow "infect" those who
> > hear them and render them incapable of practicing
> > their meditation the way they were originally 
> > taught to. Has anything you've ever heard here
> > or on a.m.t. ever affected how you choose to 
> > practice TM? If not, then I rest my case. 
> > Lighten up.
> 
> Since the technique of TM embraces the non-importance 
> of one experience over another, any acceptance theory 
> of how TM works that DOES embrace the importance of 
> one experience over another, by definition, makes 
> one's practice non-TM.

In other words, "proper belief" is required for
TM to be practiced.

Have you floated this theory past Maharishi?  ;-)







------------------------ 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/
 


Reply via email to