Curtis wrote: > We don't check people's practice in other systems of > meditation which is my point. For all we know there > are plenty of "effortless transcenders" out there. > All the practitioners at the San Francisco Zen Center and at the Los Angeles Zen Center get checked during dokusan, but you don't seem to have heard of this kind of practice. In the Tibetan practices I've tried, everyone gets checked by the teacher. Even Swami Vishnudevananda used to check to see if students were maintaining the correct asana or not, so as to properly concentrate on the tip of the nose. What, exactly, kinds of meditation practices and what teachers have you studied under that don't check their students progress? > > Get a grip Curtis! You haven't even defined what > > "effortlessly transcending" is, much less what > > meditation is. > > > We both know what it means in the TM context. > Even the Marshy himself hasn't precisely defined what TM is. So, I have no idea what you mean by "meditation" and "TM"; you didn't mention or seem to understand the checking notes. You seem to have never transcended, or again you failed to mention it.
So, that leaves me with only one question: for what purpose did you start TM and become a TM teacher? > Reflecting on thoughts is not the practice that I used > for 15 years when when I was meditating. > TM is based on thinking - how can you have meditation without thoughts to meditate on? You're not making any sense. The mantra is a thought which drops off, but when you are concious of it, it is a thought. You can't meditate if you can't think. > Thinking things over may be a part of some other > people's meditation. So I don't really get your point > here. > Are you saying that you've never had thoughts during your meditation? > If meditation is equated with "thinking things over" > it would have no usefulness as a separate term. > Transcending is experiencing the gap between thoughts. Are you sure you were trained as a teacher of TM? > Calling me an idiot for previously sharing TM beliefs > is rude and unproductive for understanding each other. > Well, you didn't seem to object when Barry said I lived in Pissville and ate prarie dog tacos. So, you DID promise poor students "enlightenment in 5-7 years" - I thought so. What an idiot! Now, I ask you, Curtis, if you lied about TM for all those years, who would believe a thing you have to say now? > > > Altered states produced my meditations and hypnosis > > > will always fascinate me. > > > > > Can you cite any scientific, blind studies that would > > support your calim that there are any altered states > > of conciousness or that there is a corresponding > > physiological state of conciousness to an altered > > state? I think not. > > > You are talking to yourself here. We do not share the > same perspective on altered states or the need for > physiological criteria for sorting them out. I am more > interested in their subjective experiences and how they > can be used for enhancing creativity and problem solving. > What makes you think there are "altered states" of conciousness? You seemed to claim that TM didn't produce any altered states and you seem to deny that TM enhanced creativity or problem solving. All I said was that TM was a great relaxation technique. FYI: There are no scientific, blind studies that support a claim that there are any altered states of conciousness. > > So, you don't know of any other spiritual movements or > > teachers that can teach a person how to effortlessly > > transcend. > > > I am not interested in finding one and you have missed > my point. > So, that's your point? > It is the assertion that TMers know that their meditation > is unique that I was questioning. > But I've listed several teachers and practices which failed to even mention transcending. Who would you beleive: A group of people standing on a street corner who all said a big blue bus just drove by. Or, A guy, standing on the same street corner, who said that no big blue bus just drove by? > Turning it around as if I have to prove the negative is > just a sophist's trick and wont work on me. > So, you can't name a single teacher who can teach effortless transcending. It's not a trick question. I suppose that we could have communicated better in the past before you began to deny the transcendent. As it is, we seem to be on different pages. If you deny the transcendent just about all you have left is rank materialism, if not nihilism. I believe in life too, but I also believe in what life does to you and what you do back. > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > > Maybe so, Curtis, but can you cite any other spiritual > > > > movements or teachers that can teach a person how to > > > > effortlessly transcend? I'd be interested in knowing > > > > more about their techniques if you know of any. > > > >
