--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sinhlnx" <sinhlnx@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ---(discussion below - TM and other techniques). Vaj, I've > concluded > > > > that you were never initiated into TM, otherwise, you wouldn't be so > > > > misguided on the contrasts between TM and other techniques. Please > > > > set the record straight: were you or were you not intiated into TM > > > > "as taught by MMY".? > > > > > > Vaj claims he was a *TM teacher*, amazingly enough. > > > > As long as you follow the teaching guidelines, you don't need > > to "get" TM in order to teach it. THAT is MMY's contribution > > to the world. Gurudev obviously "got" TM and imparted the > > essential nature to many/all of his disciples, but MMY is the > > one who mechanized the teaching for the masses. > > Well said.
Indeed. However... > I think that what is meant here (and often on this > forum) by "getting TM" is that the person who uses > that phrase is upset that the person they're > saying doesn't "get" TM doesn't buy into the dogma > about it 1) being The Best, or 2) The Only. ...the issue here is not (1) but (2), and it has nothing to do with "dogma," it has to do with WHAT MMY teaches as to the mechanics--*how* to meditate, rather than whether the mechanics of TM is better. Whether it's better is a separate question. We can even leave "only" out of the picture here in terms of what's at issue and stipulate that it's possible there *is* some other technique that is as effortless as TM. But if so, it isn't the techniques Dana is talking about. *That* > is what threatens them in the critic (because they > *do* buy into this dogma), so to somehow "protect" > the cherished notion that TM is The Best, they try > to portray the critic as having never understood > "what TM is really about." You don't even understand what's at issue, Barry. > It's a fairly sad ploy, no matter who uses it. Of > course someone can understand everything about the > way that TM has been described and presentd by > Maharishi and, at the same time, not buy it, not > believe that the description is accurate. Not at issue here. It's not a matter of whether you "buy" it, it's a matter of WHAT IT IS. But some > people would like you to believe that this isn't > true. > > TM is what it is. In my opinion it is a very valuable, > easily-learned technique of basic meditation. But > "The Best?" Give me a break? The very fact that its > promoters claim this should give one pause. NO tech- > nique or tradition is The Best; human beings are > different, and respond to different approaches to > self discovery differently, that's all. What may > be suitable for one person, or even many, may NOT > be suitable for others. The fact that the others > who have moved on from TM prefer a technique that > works better for them does not imply that they never > "got" TM. Not at issue here. The issue is that Dana doesn't get what makes TM different from the other methods he cites. > That's just something that people who are > threatened say to make themselves feel better for > having settled for the first technique they ever > tried. (And just for the record, TM was *not* the first technique I ever tried.) 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/
