For most people, this is all philosophical gobbledygook (the
spellchecker accepted that...). The TM approach to explaining it is so
much more approachable: meditation gives rest... Having a goal, however
indirect, means that one is required to put  effort into that goal,
which makes the restfulness of meditation less effective. The ultimate
form of rest for the nervous system is samadhi, but you can't "attain"
samadhi--all you can do is set up the initial conditions to allow it to
happen IF that is the form of rest that your nervous system requires at
a given moment. No matter what you do, your nervous system is only going
to allow the form/degree of rest it can handle. At that point,
repair/normalization mechanisms, reflected as thoughts in the mind, kick
in and there's nothing you can do to rest any deeper. In fact, any
attempt to do so is just another form of trying, which is not restful
anyway.

Sorry stu, this really isn't directed to you. You just get the credit
for making the statement that caught my attention and which I feel
needs correction. :-) In the last couple of weeks I have composed
several of this type response concerning the off-topic, cross-posted
spam that is littering up alt.yoga and I have not posted them. But I
think its time (again).

So at the risk of stepping out of line, I'll make the following
observations, comments and request.

I think it's such a shame :-( If half you guys, could understand what
dave (or anyone else for that matter) was saying (or asking) half the
time you might even have an worthwhile conversation once in a while.
Although this  would entail  the suspension of argument; listening and
the adoption of the mannerisms of discussion.

Yes dave does knows this. And no dave did not forget anything. Dave
asked a very simple question. How do you get to samadhi (from hither to
yon) in TM, with seed or without seed? It was his question that was not
understood and an assumption of what he must be saying (as if he was
arguing) was substituted. Which of course makes it impossible for him
(or anyone else) to participate intelligently in the discussion because
no one is listening.

If you have ever read dave's posts carefully you might notice that dave
does not argue. He will submit an idea, ask a question, pose a theory
or clarify a statement,  but he does not argue. So if you try to make
an argument out what he is saying you are going to miss it entirely.
Something I tend to notice in the TM crowd and which discourages me
from exchanging my knowledge and views in most of the TM related
threads. It also makes most discussions about meditating from the TM
standpoint useless for those of us in alt.yoga who want to learn and
understand mediation in all its aspects, including TM.

This is why I don't encourage  cross-posting discussions from and I try
to stay out of discussions cross-posted to the alt.meditation, TM,
alt-skeptic, Buddhist, etc. groups. It seems like those who prefer
these groups value argument and seem to have an unbalanced (towards
intellectualism/atheism), fragmented and hostile (frightened) view of
the Universe.  And simply don't seem to be that interested in learning
anything they don't already (think they) know.

So if you would like to discuss yoga, by all means come on over to
alt.yoga. But please stop cross-posting these useless conversations
concerning the minutiae of TM meditation to alt.yoga. Just because some
believe that yoga is "all" and therefore any and all topics should be
appropriate to alt.yoga, doesn't make it so.

OABTW, please save us all the humiliation of the who are you the
"usenet police" comments.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jared
o
^