Richard J. Williams wrote: > ...what's a "TMer", anyway? > peterklutz wrote: > Hello Willytex, > Hello, but my name isn't "Willytex", Peter, that's my email address. According to Buleah Smith, I'm TMer #212 in the U.S.A. But according to Maharishi, being on the program doesn't include posting insider information to Internet newsgroups like this one. What's up with that? > In my mind a TMer is someone who regularly practices TM as > taught by His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. > Thanks for taking the time to post a reply to my question, but you you raise more questions than you answer. In order to define "TMer" you'd have to first define "TM". A definition would have to be all-inclusive and allow no exceptions. What, exactly, is "TM", anyway?
According to His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, TM is based on thinking, pure and simple. If so, then everyone practices TM, since hardly a person could be found that can't think. > Having once been initiated but not practizing makes you a > non-TMer, or perhaps in the minds of some folk, an ex-TMer. > Maybe so, but what if a person practices TM for longer than twenty minutes twice a day? Are they still considered a "TMer"? What if they meditate for only fifteen minutes once a day? What if they skip a day or two, or even a year or two, and then come back to the practice later? > Then there is the special category of folks who claim to be > meditating, or to be medtitating, or to have been initiated > and not meditating... > Meditation means "to think things over", so everyone meditates to a certain degree. Almost everyone on the planet pauses once or twice a day to take stock of their own mind stuff. In fact, everyone is transcending, even without a technique. > - and who spend time on this list attacking TM. > So, what's up with those who spend time on this list attacking the "non-TMers"? > I think the real question is: Who are these people? > Well, I don't know since you and some others don't reveal who they really are, Mr. Klutz, not that it matters. The question is, what is so unique about "TM"? Is it the use of of a "bija mantra" and if so, what's a "bija mantra"? And why would nonsense syllables make any difference to one's method of thinking? According to Maharishi, any sound or word could be used for meditation. Maharishi also said that any technique that provides the opportunity for transcending could be termed "TM". In your opinion, what is so unique about the TM bija mantras? Other questions: What's a "Freemason"? There are lots of people around here where I live that refer to themselves as members of the "Free and Accepted Scottish Rite", but they hardly ever use the word "Freemason" to describe themselves. Another question: How would you be knowing anything about Freemasons since it's supposedly a secret society? > I'll re-insert this caveat lector. > >From what I've read, Vaj is very knowledgeable about eastern spiritual practices, and so is Barry. Apparently they've spent almost their entire adult life in and out of various eastern cults. >From what I've read on Usenet, Vaj and Barry are probably two of the most expert authorities on eastern spiritual practices on the entire planet. I may not agree with some of their opinions, but I'll give credit where credit is due. However, as Lawson recently pointed out, you really got mixed up on your recent editing of the Wikipedia entry on Mahesh Yogi. What happened over there that got you kicked off? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi > === CAVEAT LECTOR === > > After an exchange of postings it has become evident that > the poster using the name Vaj is a Freemason, apparently > of high rank, with (1) little or no understanding of TM > and other eastern spiritual practices; and who has > confessed to (2) be on a mission to apparently sow doubt > about the safety of the practices of i.a. the TM and > TM-Sidhi programes. > > For more details cf posting: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/132902 > > === END CAVEAT LECTOR === >
