--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Largely as an experiment, a good number of months ago decided to > mention that TM was a dualistic method of meditation. The idea was > not to characterize that as negative nor to cast it as positive. The > initial intent was to see if some people were not aware of that > simple, basic fact. It's come up several times since then. > > What it ended up telling me is who was attached to certain *ideas* > about their own meditation practices and who really knew what they > were doing. The truth is that *most* meditation *techniques* are > dualistic, esp. basic meditation. Even the most sublime teachings > will often contain a subtle dualism. > > Some people ended up defending this *idea* as if their lives > depended on it.
In a very real sense, they do. That is, the lives of those *selves* (small S) that have so identified with a concept that their existence is challenged if the concept is challenged. > Some people had a huge amount of attachment to this idea. Some > came out of the woodwork to hurl insults or to defend TM. > > Interestingly some of the most knowledgeable people on the list > simply said nothing. Not knowing whether I am remotely "knowledgeable" or not, but knowing that I didn't bother to weigh in on this "experiment" at the time, I'll do so now. :-) I agree with you that TM, and *most* other methods of meditation are dualistic. > I think at this point I can declare the experiment over. :-) > > I learned what I wanted to learn. > > Thanks for all of you who participated. Your comments are now > part of the public record. I've found a similar reaction when other basic, never- to-be-challenged assumptions (that is, never to be challenged within a TM environment) *are* challenged. For example, that TM is completely effortless, when direct statements from Maharishi say that it isn't. Or that TM is "100% life-supporting," with *no* negative side effects possible, when the experience of most people who have attended long courses should indicate that this is not true (much less what psycho- analysts say about the appropriateness of meditation for folks who suffer from some mental problems). It's a "pushed button" reaction we're seeing, IMO. The people who react angrily to having one of the never- to-be-challenged assumptions challenged are doing so because of an over-identification with the concept or assumption that *has* been challenged. Those who react as if they have been attacked *have* been attacked, at least in their minds, because their minds so identify with the assumption that they can no longer tell the difference between their Self and their self, and what that self has chosen to believe. A criticism of something that the self has chosen to believe is perceived as an attack on self, and reacted to as such. And to be fair, I see that only in a *very few* of the regular participants on FFL. To name names -- Judy, Lawson, and Nablus, with occasional others popping up, depending on the never-to-be-challenged-ness :-) of the particular topic under discussion. All others seem to have a more adult perspective on their beliefs, and understand that they are *just* beliefs.
