--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2006, at 4:58 AM, sparaig wrote:
> > I am actually quite serious: I really do believe that the 
> > desribed in the pdf is
> > quite distorted and won't go as "deep" as TM. Ironically for the  
> > very reason why it asserts
> > that it goes deep: it advocates control and makes value-
> > about getting lost in
> > thoughts,
> Actually in this method people would eventually transcend for  
> significantly longer amounts of time, the important thing being  
> meditational stability and vividness. It is only when you are able 
> dive deep enough and long enough, do the emotional and mental  
> obscurations dissolve. And of course you do return back to 
> thought.
> It does not advocate "control" but leaves it to the individual to  
> find a medium between attention and total relaxation.

But of course this *is* control.  The article even
describes "introspection" as the "quality control"
aspect of this approach.  The "remedy" for counteracting
"laxity or inattention" is said to be "the cultivation of
the will, which is here closely associated with
intervention and effort."

> When this is  
> not done properly you get problems like those often seen in TM:  
> falling asleep and slouching, bad asana or posture

But these are not considered "problems" in TM.

> you talk to experienced meditators who observe TMers, one of the  
> common observations is that TMers "don't know how to sit". And it  
> causes problems, particularly with excessive thoughts.

But excessive thoughts are not considered a "problem"
in TM.

> > The TM insight is that getting lost in thoughts in integral to
> > the process -- its the outer stroke where healing takes place. 
> > Without that healing, you won't have the long-term opportunity
> > to go deeper.
> All beginning meditators will have an aspect of their practice 
> where they return to discursive thought and then return to their 
> meditative object. If you read the article (which it would seem you 
> did not) you would see clearly where the mechanics of this are 
> clearly described as the preliminary stages of this method--but it 
> is only a beginning part. Eventually attentional stability and 
> vividness increase.

In the TM context, the idea is that the healing that
takes place during the outer stroke ultimately makes
possible what you call greater "attentional stability
and vividness." So what you say doesn't address Lawson's
point at all.

It appears from the article that the approach it 
describes assumes that cause and effect are the reverse
of what is assumed in TM, which is typical of the
differences between the TM teaching and "traditional"

> Not attaining this and being stuck in 
> continuous patterns of discursive thought is likened to trying to 
> look at a star through a telescope while bouncing about on a 
> bicycle--there is no stability with which examine consciousness 
> with.

In the TM context, discursive thought during meditation
is said to arise as a result of "stress release," or the
dissolution of impurities brought about by the "deep rest"
of the innter stroke.  The more impurities that are
dissolved in this way, the fewer there are to arise and
trigger discursive thought.  So "being stuck" in
patterns of discursive thought would be a self-limiting
condition, like pouring water out of a bucket.  Eventually
there is no more water to be poured.  (My metaphor, not

The point being that there is a very fundamental
difference in understanding between TM and the approach
you describe.  Nothing in what you've said or in that
article actually addresses this difference beyond mere

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