--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> 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.
If MMY insists that TM isn't (or can't be) 100% effortless, than he is wrong. > 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). > A very situational issue indeed And, for most, the right "amount" of TM is beneficial. However, the definition of "too much" can vary widely.
