--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 2006, at 9:03 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > 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. > > > Kind of a moot point since we've long ago debunked the idea that TM > is effortless and actually have the words of Mahesh on this where he > indicates it does take effort. > > There are a number of reasons for TM requiring effort, most > significant is that it uses "patched placement", that is when you > fail to transcend continuously, you have to patch that failure (or > "break") by returning to the mantra. Of course it is helpful to know > experientially what effortless meditation is, it is meditation > without any object whatsoever. If you need an object to find some > inward stroke, there's effort involved, period. It's a natural > consequence of all dualistic meditation methods, ones that require > you to close eyes and turn towards an object in order to merge with > that object and transcend something. >
Waves hand, bah. Or, moreto the point, why is TM the only technique that shows reduction in activity of the thalamus? 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/
