Shrim or Shirim?
Phyllis Sheehan
Shring and Shrim !
Untill recently,I thought my TM mantra was unique to me,untill I met
someone with the same mantra,but I am confused !
The mantra I was issued sounds like 'Shehrem' or 'Shuhrem' of 2
syllables:- pronounced SHEH-REM or SHUH-REM (It's a pity this is not
in wav file format then you would hear my pronounciation!).Does anyone
else appart from my acquaintance share this mantra?
Regards,
Phyllis
Lawson English
how to pronounce your mantra. Suggest you get checked if you have questions
about why this might be the case. The checker won't answer your questions
directly, but the entire procedure might give you some insight so that you
can answer this issue for yourself.
"Phyllis Sheehan" <fill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b74208a1.03021...@posting.google.com...
Pat
"Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b3123o$fft$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> A reminder: if you're still practicing TM, it is NOT a good idea to
discuss
> how to pronounce your mantra. Suggest you get checked if you have
questions
> about why this might be the case. The checker won't answer your questions
> directly, but the entire procedure might give you some insight so that you
> can answer this issue for yourself.
>
>
pre-written script they know nothing about whether you are meditating
correctly, can they experience what the individual mediator experiences, of
course not.
Lawson English
news:%%T4a.10927$zR7.94...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Exactly. The TM checking procedure isn't about meditating "correctly" since
there's no such thing (at least that you can point a finger at). What it
DOES do is lead you through a procedure that allows you to START meditating
and gives strategies for handling common issues that might arise during your
period of TM.
Discussions about the "correct" pronounciation of the mantra outside the
context of learning TM are pretty much as contra-TM practice as you can get.
John Manning
Dear Phyllis, since you have already shared your mantra here, the
correct pronunciation is shear, like shearing a sheep - and im, like
'rim' the rim of a wheel; "shearim" Maharishi wrote it down for me as
follows: SHIRIM
But please keep your mantra to yourself. Whether it's true or not, I was
told that speaking your mantra out loud has a tendency to weaken it. A
couple of meditations, however, will certainly make it OK when you go
deep inside again.
Please ignore any negative comments here about this.
I am a TM teacher that was directly trained by Maharishi. You'll be
fine. And remember that the mantra can change during meditation. It can
stretch out or emphasize one syllable or the other. And if the mantra
tends to fade, we allow it to fade. Of course, if the mantra changes
into a different word altogether, we very gently and effortlessly return
to the original word sound. It might be good if you have your meditation
checked by a qualified teacher. But from what you've written, you really
seem to be doing well.
You can email me privately if you have any further questions or doubts
at: joh...@terra.com.br
I will be happy to assist you.
Best wishes,
John Manning
>
> Regards,
>
> Phyllis
Steve Ralph
information about them with the specific purpose of disrupting peoples
practice - though they always pretend otherwise.
Enjoy!
S Ralph
"John Manning" <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:3E541C9C...@terra.com.br...
BillyG.
promised you wouldn't, doesn't that bother you......that you broke your
promise? No one ever said there were an unlimited number of mantras...ALL
the mantras have powerful, life supporting effects. It shouldn't bother you
that another might share yours, the effectiveness should be in your
'results', during, and after, the practice....tell me Phylliss, has TM been
beneficial to you?
"Phyllis Sheehan" <fill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b74208a1.03021...@posting.google.com...
Uncle Tantra
>Phyliss-It appears you have revealed your mantra, without shame, after you
>promised you wouldn't, doesn't that bother you......that you broke your
>promise?
Hey! Lighten up, asshole! There was no "promise" to
not reveal one's mantra ever asked of any TMer. You
imagined there was because you bought into the froo-froo
pseudo-magic yourself.
You are simply trying to make someone feel bad for not
buying the same silly bullshit you did.
There are times when "Pat" has a point about the cult thang...
BillyG.
"Uncle Tantra" <tantr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030219202135...@mb-cg.aol.com...
John Manning
"BillyG." wrote:
>
> Unc-You strike me as being, *uninformed*.
Unc is right BillyG. You are throwing unnecessary cold water here. And I
*am* informed. I'm sure that Unc is too.
John
(snip)
BillyG.
better go over your notes once again!!news:3E54396C...@terra.com.br...
John Manning
"BillyG." wrote:
>
> JRM-I don't think so JRM. If you pride yourself as an Initiator you had
> better go over your notes once again!!
Hey BillyG, please SHOW ME where I'm wrong. And by the way, are you a TM
teacher directly trained by Maharishi? Or are you one of the few hundred
TMO bureaucrats that like to set rules for others - which is apparently
why most people are totally turned off from TM these days.
John
Stu
at wmur...@earthlink.net wrote on 2/19/03 6:19 PM:
In any case, even if there is an implied promise or not, revealing the
mantra, and speaking about the mechanics of TM weakens the practice.
It has been my experience that whenever the discussion of TM gets into the
mechanics I have difficulty with the instruction to repeat the mantra
effortlessly. I start thinking about pronunciation, Hindu Gods, and whatnot
instead of doing the business at hand. Just seeing the mantra written in
print conjures the image of the lettering as one more distraction.
There is much value in keeping the mantra, and the practice, contained,
deeply inward, and at subtle levels. Otherwise we might as well be watching
the breath.
--
~Stu
BillyG.
promise) with MMY and ought to be ashamed by violating his trust and going
back on her word to keep it private. She clearly is offensive right out of
the box...by spitting out things better left unsaid. Perhaps her integrity
is already so compromised she didn't even notice!!!!
"Stu" <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:BA79855D.1B148%nos...@no.spam...
John Manning
"BillyG." wrote:
>
> True Stu-However, the point being Phylliss violated her agreement (AKA
> promise) with MMY and ought to be ashamed by violating his trust and going
> back on her word to keep it private. She clearly is offensive right out of
> the box...by spitting out things better left unsaid. Perhaps her integrity
> is already so compromised she didn't even notice!!!!
Your characterization of Phyllis is disgusting. She asked an innocent
question. Your treatment of her is likely to make her think that TM
teachers are assholes who have little regard for students. And in your
case, she would be right.
John
Stu
at wmur...@earthlink.net wrote on 2/19/03 7:12 PM:
> True Stu-However, the point being Phylliss violated her agreement (AKA
> promise) with MMY and ought to be ashamed by violating his trust and going
> back on her word to keep it private. She clearly is offensive right out of
> the box...by spitting out things better left unsaid. Perhaps her integrity
> is already so compromised she didn't even notice!!!!
To me the violation is a violation within herself. I hope for her sake that
her meditations are effortless and pleasant even though she is exposing her
mantra publicly. If the exposure does not affect her practice, or she
doesn't mind if it does - there is no harm done.
I am sure from MMY's point of view, he gave this advice, in hopes of making
the practice as elevating as possible. If the student fail to follow the
advice, be it saying the mantra, meditating after eating, or in full sun,
the consequences are to be endured by the meditator.
--
~Stu
BillyG.
pass away.
"John Manning" <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:3E544B88...@terra.com.br...
BillyG.
"Stu" <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message
willytex
Pat - I don't think so - getting checked makes a lot of sense to me.
Especially for someone who has invested a sizeable amount of money to learn
the technique. Checking is free for life, so why not take advantage of it?
That is, unless, like yourself, you never even got intitiated, and never
paid a fee, hence you would not be able to avail yourself of checking in the
first place.
> All the checkers do...
Have you ever been checked? If not, how would you know? Who is your checker?
"Pat" <mr...@blue.DUMP.SPAM.CRAP.yonder.co.uk>
wrote in message news:%%T4a.10927$zR7.94...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
John Manning
"BillyG." wrote:
>
> Poor John-Struggling with his reactive mind again...Oh well, even this will
> pass away.
Ad hominem doesn't cut the mustard BillyG.
John
Lawson English
I'm more concerned that people posing as TM teachers are thinking its kool
to discuss the "correct" pronounciation of some's TM mantra, either in
public or private. In the formal TM organization, only the original TM
teacher or MMY himself is ever supposed to have anything to do with that.
Lawson English
wording is the suggestion that what is "learned in private stays private."
Of far greater concern is John's obvious mis-remembering of what he was
taught as a TM teacher and how he's clouding the issue for the person he's
responding to.
To semi-quote many different TM teachers quoting MMY on the subject: "We
don't say out loud or write down our mantra because that is like pulling up
a plant to examine its roots to see how well it is growing."
I know that TM teachers have been given specific instructions on how to
handle the complaint that the student can't quite remember "how to
pronounce" their mantra because I heard the same answer many times in group
checking by many different teachers over the years. I dont' recall if those
instructions are found in my individual checking notes. It doesn't matter
either way, of course, but John seems to have forgotten a very important
point or never quite understood it.
"BillyG." <wmur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sIX4a.10765$_c6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Uncle Tantra
>True Stu-However, the point being Phylliss violated her agreement (AKA
>promise) with MMY and ought to be ashamed by violating his trust and going
>back on her word to keep it private. She clearly is offensive right out of
>the box...by spitting out things better left unsaid. Perhaps her integrity
>is already so compromised she didn't even notice!!!!
The fact that you feel offended does NOT mean that Phyllis was offensive.
YOU are the one with the hangups about speaking one's TM mantra
aloud, because you bought into a social convention hook, line and sinker.
YOU actually believe that there was some kind of "promise" to Maharishi,
and YOU actually believe it is in the Teacher Training notes. John and
I know differently, and at the same time know that YOU are the one who
will never go back to those notes and discover the truth.
You are a superstitious twit, Billy. Stu is correct in that there are many
pragmatic reasons to not shout one's mantra to the treetops, but making
some kind of weird "promise" to Maharishi is not one of them. You made
that up, to the point where you actually believe it is true.
And because Phyllis didn't self-delude herself the way you did, you are
mad at her and are trying your compassionate best to make her feel like
shit for doing what you have been afraid of doing all your TM life. Well,
the bottom line is that she has common sense and you do not. If anyone
here is "compromised," it is you, not her.
Phyllis, ignore anything this silly, dogmatic, cruel twit says. He's just
trying to make you feel like shit because you are not terrified of mythical
taboos and he is.
Unc
Steve Ralph
> True Stu-However, the point being Phylliss violated her agreement (AKA
> promise) with MMY and ought to be ashamed by violating his trust and going
> back on her word to keep it private. She clearly is offensive right out of
> the box...by spitting out things better left unsaid. Perhaps her integrity
> is already so compromised she didn't even notice!!!!
>
where it can't be missed. This was done with the purpose of disruption.
Its a shame the asshole succeeded so well.
SR
Judy Stein
> BillyG:
> >Phyliss-It appears you have revealed your mantra, without shame, after you
> >promised you wouldn't, doesn't that bother you......that you broke your
> >promise?
>
> Hey! Lighten up, asshole! There was no "promise" to
> not reveal one's mantra ever asked of any TMer.
There sure was when I learned in 1975. We had to sign a paper
agreeing that what was taught in private would remain private.
You
> imagined there was because you bought into the froo-froo
> pseudo-magic yourself.
>
> You are simply trying to make someone feel bad for not
> buying the same silly bullshit you did.
>
> There are times when "Pat" has a point about the cult thang...
Time to apologize to BillyG, Uncle Tantrum.
Furthermore, there's no "froo-froo pseudo-magic" involved.
There are solid practical reasons for keeping one's mantra
to oneself, as I strongly suspect you know, having been a
TM teacher yourself.
Uncle Tantra
Not bloody likely. He did a sick and despicable
thing, trying to make Phyllis feel bad for innocently
asking a question about her mantra. Let's turn the
tables -- do YOU think he did the right thing by
trying to make her feel bad instead of dealing
compassionately with her question? If you do, I feel
as sorry for you as I do him.
>Furthermore, there's no "froo-froo pseudo-magic" involved.
>There are solid practical reasons for keeping one's mantra
>to oneself, as I strongly suspect you know, having been a
>TM teacher yourself.
While I agree that there are practical reasons
for keeping one's mantra to oneself, there is ALSO
a bunch of froo-froo pseudomagic. The two are not
mutually exclusive, as BillyG demonstrates.
In his mind, the froo-froo pseudomagic is important
enough that he doesn't even notice that he's being
hateful to a student of TM who is asking an innocent
question. All he can see is someone who violated the
froo-froo pseudomagic, so he reacts angrily and tries to
put her down. What an example of enlightenment
he is! Not.
Unc
BillyG.
"Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.0302...@posting.google.com...
J.Rocha
>>Time to apologize to BillyG, Uncle Tantrum.
When I learned TM, a few years later then Judy Stein, in Holland, I also
signed such a paper.
>Not bloody likely. He did a sick and despicable
>thing, trying to make Phyllis feel bad for innocently
>asking a question about her mantra.
I think "Phyllis" was not really being so innocent as that, we all know we
should not publish the mantra, and that for good reasons, that were
clearly explained when we learned TM.
You would have a strange rule of ethics, if telling the truth was to be "a sick
and despicable thing", in case the truth makes someone "feel bad".
>Let's turn the tables -- do YOU think he did the right thing by
>trying to make her feel bad instead of dealing compassionately with her
>question? If you do, I feel as sorry for you as I do him.
You seem to be assuming some people "feel good" when they make
others "feel bad"
Are you trying to make BillyG, Judy etc. feel really bad ? ;--)
>>Furthermore, there's no "froo-froo pseudo-magic" involved.
>>There are solid practical reasons for keeping one's mantra to oneself, as
>>I strongly suspect you know, having been a TM teacher yourself.
>While I agree that there are practical reasons
>for keeping one's mantra to oneself, there is ALSO
>a bunch of froo-froo pseudomagic. The two are not
>mutually exclusive, as BillyG demonstrates.
We all seem to agree about that.
About "magic" or "pseudo-magic", I guess each one has had his (or hers)
experience, depending (somewhat) on the teacher you got, and the situation
itself.
---------------------------------------
I enjoyed reading you book online, in special the story about the trip to the desert
with your teacher, and the scorpion watching it all happen.
I'm quite sure you have also read the books from Carlos Castañeda.
Talking about "Personal Power" or "Support of Nature" ,do you think those are
two related concepts, the same, or not at all ?
>Unc
J. Rocha
Uncle Tantra
>
>When I learned TM, a few years later then Judy Stein, in Holland, I also
>signed such a paper.
I don't doubt it. I have just been pointing out that there was a point
in time at which such things appeared, and if one began TM before
that point, there was no such agreement. Therefore, to assert as a
"blanket statement" that such an agreement has always been in effect
is just stupid.
>>Not bloody likely. He [BillyG] did a sick and despicable
>>thing, trying to make Phyllis feel bad for innocently
>>asking a question about her mantra.
>
>I think "Phyllis" was not really being so innocent as that, we all know we
>should not publish the mantra, and that for good reasons, that were
>clearly explained when we learned TM.
But why do you feel so strongly that she was "not being
innocent" just because she either forgot or didn't believe
the admonition to not speak the mantra aloud? What I
am getting at is that you are defining "right and wrong"
in this case as "doing what you were told to do by a
TM Teacher." I happen to believe that has nothing what-
soever to do with right and wrong. :-)
>You would have a strange rule of ethics, if telling the truth was to be "a
>sick and despicable thing", in case the truth makes someone "feel bad".
John Manning "told the truth" but he managed to be
supportive. Stu "told the truth," and managed to be
supportive. BillyG told a lie, and did it to purposefully
put this woman down, make her feel bad, and make
himself seem superior.
>>Let's turn the tables -- do YOU think he did the right thing by
>>trying to make her feel bad instead of dealing compassionately with her
>>question? If you do, I feel as sorry for you as I do him.
>
>You seem to be assuming some people "feel good" when they make
>others "feel bad"
>
>Are you trying to make BillyG, Judy etc. feel really bad ? ;--)
Good catch. Yes. I am trying to point out that BillyG
behaved shamefully in this situation, so that hopefully
he does not repeat this behavior in the future, further
embarrassing himself, Maharishi, and TM. I suspect that
Judy, although she undoubtedly believes in the value
of keeping one's TM mantra private, would not really
support the tactless and sadistic way BillyG dealt with
Phyllis in this case.
>>>Furthermore, there's no "froo-froo pseudo-magic" involved.
>>>There are solid practical reasons for keeping one's mantra to oneself, as
>>>I strongly suspect you know, having been a TM teacher yourself.
>
>>While I agree that there are practical reasons
>>for keeping one's mantra to oneself, there is ALSO
>>a bunch of froo-froo pseudomagic. The two are not
>>mutually exclusive, as BillyG demonstrates.
>
>We all seem to agree about that.
Wait and see. I somehow doubt that Judy will agree. :-)
>About "magic" or "pseudo-magic", I guess each one has had his (or hers)
>experience, depending (somewhat) on the teacher you got, and the situation
>itself.
Yup. Some people see the advice about keeping one's mantra to oneself
as a practical suggestion, and leave it at that. Others glom onto the idea
that one is doing something *bad* or unethical by speaking it aloud, and
that to do so violates some unspoken froo-froo pseudomagic code. Ob-
viously, I am of the former camp, while others here are from the latter. :-)
>---------------------------------------
>I enjoyed reading you book online, in special the story about the trip to the
>desert with your teacher, and the scorpion watching it all happen.
>
>I'm quite sure you have also read the books from Carlos Castañeda.
>
>Talking about "Personal Power" or "Support of Nature" ,do you think those
>are two related concepts, the same, or not at all ?
Hmmm. Interesting question. I don't know that I have ever considered it.
Castaneda was more of an "occultist," for whom the development of
"personal power" was a way of the seeker imposing his or her *will* on
the universe. I always interpreted Maharishi's talks about "support of
nature" as more Taoist, in the sense that over time, as a result of med-
itation, one was becoming more attuned to and/or "in the flow with"
nature, as opposed to "controlling nature."
Glad you liked the scorpion story. He (or more accurately, his next
incarnation) makes another appearance at the end of the book. I
really liked him as narrator. :-)
Unc
BillyG.
feel really bad ? ;--)"..snuck, snuck, or should I say unc, unc.
"J.Rocha" <JMVR...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:367a5v00u2g7m291n...@4ax.com...
John Manning
"BillyG." wrote:
>
> J-Clever post, especially that, "Are you trying to make BillyG, Judy etc.
> feel really bad ? ;--)"..snuck, snuck, or should I say unc, unc.
I think it might be helpful for you BillyG to reflect on how you treated
Ms. Sheehan. Your response to her indicated your preference for
authoritarian judgement within your own confined views (much like
Petrus) over anything positive that you might have accomplished by
actually helping her with her question. After all, TM teachers are
supposed to represent a higher standard and reflect it in their
behavior.
We are all still human beings. But kindness and understanding always
wins out over a hostile put down. One might expect that a TM teacher
would reflect the former. Unfortunately that isn't always the case.
Actually, kindness and understanding and giving is more likely the
exception when it comes to the TMO. I believe that that problem is
endemic within the TM culture and is probably partly why the TMO is not
highly regarded by almost anyone who has or has had contact with it and
is not part of it.
I am a human being also who is still learning - and I'm certainly not
always right. But I 'do' know from experience that genuine kindness
always produces better results over hostility. If you haven't come to
understand that point after all this time, it makes me wonder what is
the problem. Maybe you really don't give a shit about Ms. Sheehan at all
- and prefer to sit in your own little world that you likely call
'cosmic'. If that's the case, you are deluded and have no cosmic
perception at all.
In any case, your behavior toward that woman was reprehensible. I would
have expected more from a TM teacher. Almost anyone would.
Your words above "..snuck, snuck" in attempting to dodge your
responsibility in this matter are equivalent to the mentality expressed
by the 3 Stooges (Larry, Curly and Moe). And your attitude in that
regard, is likely just as disgusting to almost anyone who has any sense
of genuine spiritual integrity, as it is to me - particularly when you
have been mandated by Maharishi to represent the 'highest *spiritual*
teaching on earth'. (I'm uncomfortably assuming that you are a TM
teacher.)
John Manning
(snip to end)
Judy Stein
> >Time to apologize to BillyG, Uncle Tantrum.
>
> Not bloody likely. He did a sick and despicable
> thing, trying to make Phyllis feel bad for innocently
> asking a question about her mantra.
Beat up on him all you want for how he handled the
situation. This (as you know) is what you need to
apologize for:
"Hey! Lighten up, asshole! There was no `promise' to
not reveal one's mantra ever asked of any TMer. You
imagined there was because you bought into the froo-froo
pseudo-magic yourself."
BillyG didn't "imagine" a promise, regardless of why
he thinks it's required.
Let's turn the
> tables -- do YOU think he did the right thing by
> trying to make her feel bad instead of dealing
> compassionately with her question?
No, I think he could have been a lot more tactful.
However (as you know), that wasn't my point.
If you do, I feel
> as sorry for you as I do him.
>
> >Furthermore, there's no "froo-froo pseudo-magic" involved.
> >There are solid practical reasons for keeping one's mantra
> >to oneself, as I strongly suspect you know, having been a
> >TM teacher yourself.
>
> While I agree that there are practical reasons
> for keeping one's mantra to oneself, there is ALSO
> a bunch of froo-froo pseudomagic
Not that I've ever heard from a TM teacher.
Judy Stein
> >>>Time to apologize to BillyG, Uncle Tantrum.
> >
> >When I learned TM, a few years later then Judy Stein, in Holland, I also
> >signed such a paper.
>
> I don't doubt it. I have just been pointing out that there was a point
> in time at which such things appeared, and if one began TM before
> that point, there was no such agreement. Therefore, to assert as a
> "blanket statement" that such an agreement has always been in effect
> is just stupid.
BillyG asserted no such "blanket statement."
However, you did, in reverse:
"Hey! Lighten up, asshole! There was no `promise' to
not reveal one's mantra EVER asked of any TMer" (emphasis
added).
Looks pretty stupid to me.
> >>Not bloody likely. He [BillyG] did a sick and despicable
> >>thing, trying to make Phyllis feel bad for innocently
> >>asking a question about her mantra.
> >
> >I think "Phyllis" was not really being so innocent as that, we all know we
> >should not publish the mantra, and that for good reasons, that were
> >clearly explained when we learned TM.
>
> But why do you feel so strongly that she was "not being
> innocent" just because she either forgot or didn't believe
> the admonition to not speak the mantra aloud? What I
> am getting at is that you are defining "right and wrong"
> in this case as "doing what you were told to do by a
> TM Teacher."
As Uncle Tantrum knows, in the TM context "innocent" doesn't
refer to right vs. wrong. If she forgot, then she's "innocent";
she didn't know. If she knew and went ahead anyway, then the
question wasn't "innocent" in the TM sense no matter how good
her intentions may have been.
And, of course, as I and others have been pointing out, it wasn't
a matter of "doing what you were told by a TM teacher," it was
a matter of signing an agreement and then breaking it.
<snip>
> John Manning "told the truth" but he managed to be
> supportive. Stu "told the truth," and managed to be
> supportive. BillyG told a lie, and did it to purposefully
> put this woman down, make her feel bad, and make
> himself seem superior.
BillyG did *not* tell a lie, he spoke the truth: TMers, at least
since 1972, are required to sign a paper saying they will keep
private what was taught in private.
<snip>
> >>While I agree that there are practical reasons
> >>for keeping one's mantra to oneself, there is ALSO
> >>a bunch of froo-froo pseudomagic. The two are not
> >>mutually exclusive, as BillyG demonstrates.
> >
> >We all seem to agree about that.
>
> Wait and see. I somehow doubt that Judy will agree. :-)
It's hard to keep track of all the nutty ideas that take
root and grow among TMers. I know I was told the practical
reasons, period.
Phyllis Sheehan
> Phyllis Sheehan wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to this group - I read with interest the various postings on
> > Shring and Shrim !
> > Untill recently,I thought my TM mantra was unique to me,untill I met
> > someone with the same mantra,but I am confused !
> > The mantra I was issued sounds like 'Shehrem' or 'Shuhrem' of 2
> > syllables:- pronounced SHEH-REM or SHUH-REM (It's a pity this is not
> > in wav file format then you would hear my pronounciation!).Does anyone
> > else appart from my acquaintance share this mantra?
>
> Dear Phyllis, since you have already shared your mantra here, the
> correct pronunciation is shear, like shearing a sheep - and im, like
> 'rim' the rim of a wheel; "shearim" Maharishi wrote it down for me as
> follows: SHIRIM
>
> But please keep your mantra to yourself. Whether it's true or not, I was
> told that speaking your mantra out loud has a tendency to weaken it. A
> couple of meditations, however, will certainly make it OK when you go
> deep inside again.
>
> Please ignore any negative comments here about this.
>
> I am a TM teacher that was directly trained by Maharishi. You'll be
> fine. And remember that the mantra can change during meditation. It can
> stretch out or emphasize one syllable or the other. And if the mantra
> tends to fade, we allow it to fade. Of course, if the mantra changes
> into a different word altogether, we very gently and effortlessly return
> to the original word sound. It might be good if you have your meditation
> checked by a qualified teacher. But from what you've written, you really
> seem to be doing well.
>
> You can email me privately if you have any further questions or doubts
> at: joh...@terra.com.br
> I will be happy to assist you.
>
> Best wishes,
> John Manning
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Phyllis
Dear John,
Thank you so much for your help it really puts my mind at ease.
I didn't realise I'd cause such a storm!
Are most of these people really doing TM?
I don't remember signing a form promising not to reveal my mantra - I
did fill in several questionnaires-after all I paid for the technique
and my own personal mantra, I can even remember reading in Maharishi's
book about how one sound was suitable for one person, and not for
another, When I realised that I was sharing my mantra with someone
else, and having today, checked through those mantra lists on other
postings-(re Transcnet),I was really dissappointed,It was like finding
out Santa doesn't exist!
Why can't Maharishi be honest and upfront - I would still have learnt
TM.
So, I publicly apologise to anyone that I have upset. I don't think
I'll be posting too often, I don't need the stress!
Again, Thankyou John!
You are a Gentleman.
Warm Regards,
Phyllis
Pat
"Phyllis Sheehan" <fill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b74208a1.03021...@posting.google.com...
> I'm new to this group - I read with interest the various postings on
> Shring and Shrim !
> Untill recently,I thought my TM mantra was unique to me,untill I met
> someone with the same mantra,but I am confused !
> The mantra I was issued sounds like 'Shehrem' or 'Shuhrem' of 2
> syllables:- pronounced SHEH-REM or SHUH-REM (It's a pity this is not
> in wav file format then you would hear my pronounciation!).Does anyone
> else appart from my acquaintance share this mantra?
>
>
> Phyllis
I prefer the two "word" mantra chimcHiminechimchimin EchimchimchimcheRre
with that and what I've given you and what you have yourself that should get
you there. Good look. It is a very rhythmic sound really smothes your mind
down. But S. C. ,who is dead now, used to prefer something he got from the
chemist to get high, poor bastard died in about 1094 I think. Anyway I
really liked him he was really affable, but the burgler at Soho Hill had a
strange face on him. Used to try to borrow the odd tenner;he was from the
North, told me- onse the troubles, this guy pissed himself he was so scare,
but would'nt you with a gun to your head. Still it is better than it used to
be, but the shit could hit the fan-it is a very political situation you see,
both sides hate eac other-are you familiar with the concept of, I think he
said..sorry can't remember, he is half Irish by the way.
John Manning
It was a good storm Phyllis. It has had the effect of clearing the air a
bit. And your innocent question provided a means for that to happen.
> Are most of these people really doing TM?
I cannot vouch for all people who post to this newsgroup. How could I
know for sure. But there ARE some really good people here who love TM
and it's benefits in their lives.
> I don't remember signing a form promising not to reveal my mantra - I
> did fill in several questionnaires-after all I paid for the technique
> and my own personal mantra, I can even remember reading in Maharishi's
> book about how one sound was suitable for one person, and not for
> another, When I realised that I was sharing my mantra with someone
> else, and having today, checked through those mantra lists on other
> postings-(re Transcnet),I was really dissappointed,It was like finding
> out Santa doesn't exist!
There are are a certain number of mantras that are used in TM. Many
people have the same mantra, and that's OK. The mantras are divided into
age and gender - and in that regard, they are specific to the
individual. All of humanity has the same Source. And all of humanity is
not really so much different from each other. Gender and age seem to be
the greatest differences when it comes down to basic distinctions in
consciousness. But the common basis of humanity is the same Source for
everyone, even all of existence.
"Everyone just wants to be happy" is something I have heard Maharishi
say. That applies to all living creatures. And he has said that "the
purpose of life is the expansion of happiness".
TM is a direct method to go to the Source of everything that exists. It
is a direct method to actually experience one's own Source - and on that
basis you begin to have a view of your own life in the context of
completeness. To be direct about it, you will find God within yourself
and begin to find God in everything else. "All of the scattered ends of
life begin to come together into an integrated Whole" ...another quote
attributed to Maharishi.
> Why can't Maharishi be honest and upfront - I would still have learnt
> TM.
Maharishi has had to deal with human beings who make mistakes, many of
whom in his organization, like in any other humanly run organization,
are sometimes less than representative of what Maharishi has offered
with TM.
> So, I publicly apologise to anyone that I have upset. I don't think
> I'll be posting too often, I don't need the stress!
Please recognize Phyllis that this forum does not in any way represent
Maharishi or his teachings. At best, there is some genuine and
meaningful communication here where participants can really learn from
each other. And at worst, there are insults thrown and a lot of
hostility.
I admire you for coming here with your questions. And I must tell you
that you are VERY fortunate to have TM. You will discover that it is
deeply significant to you personally and it is not something that has
anything to do with the TM organization at all. It has to do with your
own personal happiness and the fulfillment of your own precious life.
Its results can only touch those whom you love with the genuine goodness
and meaning that you have always carried within you and now can more
effectively realize and share.
You've made my heart smile with your goodness. Thank you for that.
John
BillyG.
Uncle Tantra
Apologize to this roaring asshole, Judy?
Not a chance. What a waste of human life!
Stu
at wmur...@earthlink.net wrote on 2/20/03 8:06 PM:
> Snuck, snuck.......................:-)
A wisenheimer eh? Why I atta.....
--
~Stu
Mo in a prior life.
Stu
at fill...@hotmail.com wrote on 2/20/03 4:00 PM:
TM with a regular asana and pranayama practice.
> I don't remember signing a form promising not to reveal my mantra - I
> did fill in several questionnaires-after all I paid for the technique
> and my own personal mantra, I can even remember reading in Maharishi's
> book about how one sound was suitable for one person, and not for
> another, When I realised that I was sharing my mantra with someone
> else, and having today, checked through those mantra lists on other
> postings-(re Transcnet),I was really dissappointed,It was like finding
> out Santa doesn't exist!
I had a similar reaction. But upon reflection, the cynical style in which
trancenet frames the information they post, darkens material that taken on
its own is quite benign. So what if the mantras are handed out by age and
gender? So what if the mantra have some meaning in Hindu contexts?
BTW Trancenet is very wrong about my mantra. Wrong age.
For the most part MMY did the things he did in order to efficiently teach
the practice to as many people as possible in a consistent and reliable
manner.
> Why can't Maharishi be honest and upfront - I would still have learnt
> TM.
> So, I publicly apologise to anyone that I have upset. I don't think
> I'll be posting too often, I don't need the stress!
[snip]
> Phyllis
I hope the above is not true about you not posting. We can always use a
fresh point of view around here.
--
~Stu
BillyG.
BillyG.
"Stu" <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message
Judy Stein
<snip>
> and my own personal mantra, I can even remember reading in Maharishi's
> book about how one sound was suitable for one person, and not for
> another,
Phyllis, if you still have the book (which one are you
talking about?) you might want to go back and check that
part again. MMY *does* say one sound is suitable for one
person and not another, but that's like saying one size
doesn't fit all. A size 6 might be just right for you,
but it sure wouldn't fit me.
It does not mean that the mantra suitable for a given
individual isn't suitable for anyone else. There are
lots of folks (lucky duckies) for whom a size 6 is
eminently suitable.
I've never heard MMY or any TM teacher say each person had
their own unique mantra that nobody else had. That's just
a misunderstanding. My TM teacher explained--and I've heard
others explain--that TM uses a small number of mantras, so
that many people who share certain characteristics will also
have the same mantra--but that it's important to get the one
that's right for you, just as it's important when you're
getting a dress to get one that fits you properly.
Daniel Walsh
> Phyllis Sheehan wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to this group - I read with interest the various postings on
> > Shring and Shrim !
> > Untill recently,I thought my TM mantra was unique to me,untill I met
> > someone with the same mantra,but I am confused !
> > The mantra I was issued sounds like 'Shehrem' or 'Shuhrem' of 2
> > syllables:- pronounced SHEH-REM or SHUH-REM (It's a pity this is not
> > in wav file format then you would hear my pronounciation!).Does anyone
> > else appart from my acquaintance share this mantra?
>
> Dear Phyllis, since you have already shared your mantra here, the
> correct pronunciation is shear, like shearing a sheep - and im, like
> 'rim' the rim of a wheel; "shearim" Maharishi wrote it down for me as
> follows: SHIRIM
Now, I'm all at sea!
The mantra I was given was: 'SHERING' of 2 syllables: SHER-ING - IT IN
NO WAY SOUNDED LIKE 'SHEARING,' IF SO IT WOULD HAVE HAD A MEANING FOR
ME! I would have associated it with literally shearing sheep!
I realise that we are currently discussing the mantra SHIRIM,but the
only difference between my mantra and SHIRIM is the 'ing' ending as
opposed to the 'im' ending- surely I haven't been wrong all these
years thinking 'SHERING' instead of "SHEARING" - I even remember my TM
teacher saying to me on day 2 when I felt that I had forgotten it-
remember ''Shering'' to rhyme with ''Stirring!''
Daniel
Billy Smith
Daniel,
Open disclosure of your mantra is not a good idea. I appreciate you
may have some pronunciation confusion or conflict.
Email me directly at - avril...@dol.ie and I'll verify the correct
pronunciation of your mantra.
Kind Regards,
Billy
>
> >
> > But please keep your mantra to yourself. Whether it's true or not, I was
> > told that speaking your mantra out loud has a tendency to weaken it. A
> > couple of meditations, however, will certainly make it OK when you go
> > deep inside again.
> >
> > Please ignore any negative comments here about this.
> >
> > I am a TM teacher that was directly trained by Maharishi. You'll be
> > fine. And remember that the mantra can change during meditation. It can
> > stretch out or emphasize one syllable or the other. And if the mantra
> > tends to fade, we allow it to fade. Of course, if the mantra changes
> > into a different word altogether, we very gently and effortlessly return
> > to the original word sound. It might be good if you have your meditation
> > checked by a qualified teacher. But from what you've written, you really
> > seem to be doing well.
> >
> > You can email me privately if you have any further questions or doubts
> > at: joh...@terra.com.br
> > I will be happy to assist you.
Maybe,you would prefer to deal with a TM teacher trained by
Maharishi,If so you would be better dealing with John.
Is Your TM teacher still at your local centre? If so,go to them.
Regards,
Billy
John Manning
Please don't make too much a fuss about all of this Daniel. As I was
taught by Maharishi, the mantra that you received when you were
initiated was given to you in its purity and is gently vibrating there
within your very subtle consciousness - even as memory. And as you
transcended when you were initiated (you did, whether you were aware of
it or not), that mantra reached from the outer gross level all the way
to the Absolute.
The grosser out loud pronunciations that you have described have such a
similar pronunciation that when you sit down to meditate and begin to
reach subtler levels, the mind will naturally associate itself with the
the mantra in its subtle purity 'automatically'.
And of course, the TM mantras are described as word-sounds. No meaning
is to be attributed to them or should be inferred by any coincidental
similarity to any words used in language. Just go by the sound. The
'sound' or 'vibration' of the mantra is what is significant.
A couple of interesting asides:
There were many times when I was standing there doing the initiation
ceremony for someone when I would transcend; sometimes so powerfully
that I would lose my place in the ceremony. What was amazing about it
however, was that I'd seemingly pick up right where I left off without
skipping a beat.
I also did some initiations once in a TM Center where they took before
and after polaroid pictures of the initiates (of course only with their
permission). They had this huge board with lots of faces. Someone should
have made that into a TM picture book. The before and after expressions
were obvious - and a few were astounding!
Best wishes Daniel,
John
Denis Buckley
Hi, I'm a newcomer to alt.med
While I don't agree with publishing your mantra in this or any other
newsgroup
I can understand longterm meditators frustrations.
The TM Organization has changed so much,and I don't quite know where
Maharishi is coming from?
Now,you go to your local TM center and it's either closed down or
manned by Maharishi 'yes' Men (male and female)
The good news is the technique hasn't changed!
But some of us less perfect beings(primarily myself), who perhaps got
caught up in the 'goodtimes' as a result of the tremendous positive
changes brought about by the technique,allowed that life changing
practise to slip,and became irregular in our practise!
What does one do? - Go back to your nearest TM center (if it's still
there) and get a check ! Great! ''But can you get your mantra checked
- noway!''
You have to find your Initiator,and in lots of cases you will discover
that they are either dead or no longer associated with The TM
Organisation.
Your mantra is probably fine,as is your meditation,but some of us need
that reassurance. I was reassured recently by a very Compassionate TM
teacher,and the difference in my meditations is beyond my
expectations,my meditations are on a par with what they were 20+ years
ago!
To any meditators reading this, who have shared my experiences, I say
take action,and don't bottle it all up,or stop your practise of TM -
GET IT SORTED OUT!
As a TM practitioner you have one of life's greatest gifts - use it,
don't lose it!
If you need help,please email me privately at :- kash...@yahoo.co.uk
Jai Guru Dev,
Denis
Lawson English
"Denis Buckley" <kash...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >
[...]
> Your mantra is probably fine,as is your meditation,but some of us need
> that reassurance. I was reassured recently by a very Compassionate TM
> teacher,and the difference in my meditations is beyond my
> expectations,my meditations are on a par with what they were 20+ years
> ago!
quite literally, according to my understanding, 99.99% of people who are
worried about the "correct" pronounciation of their TM mantras are worrying
needlessly. Or rather, their worry is either the result of a
misunderstanding, or is a sign of stress-release if it happens during TM
practice.
As I have said several times: after almost 30 years of practicing TM I find
it very difficult if not impossible to remember how to say my mantra out
loud. This really shouldn't surprise anyone since I havent' said it out loud
very often in the last 30 years and it would be perfectly natural, even
expected, for me to forget its precise (or even approximate) pronounciation
over that long a time.
Given that this is exactly what one would expect (that the mantra is hard to
remember how to say exactly after a few hours, days, weeks, months, years,
decades of time have passed since one first learned it), why worry about it?
It is the natural course of events and TM is meant to be completely natural.
As I said, for the overwhelming majority of cases, people are worrying
needlessly.
Shirley Madden
John - may I email you with my query?
Shirley
John Manning
Yes Shirley.
dave.n...@gmail.com
hasanhar...@gmail.com
> I'm new to this group - I read with interest the various postings on
> Shring and Shrim !
> Untill recently,I thought my TM mantra was unique to me,untill I met
> someone with the same mantra,but I am confused !
> The mantra I was issued sounds like 'Shehrem' or 'Shuhrem' of 2
> syllables:- pronounced SHEH-REM or SHUH-REM (It's a pity this is not
> in wav file format then you would hear my pronounciation!).Does anyone
> else appart from my acquaintance share this mantra?
>
>
> Phyllis
moshin ali love shirim fatama
down...@verizon.net
> I'm new to this group - I read with interest the various postings on
> Shring and Shrim !
> Untill recently,I thought my TM mantra was unique to me,untill I met
> someone with the same mantra,but I am confused !
> The mantra I was issued sounds like 'Shehrem' or 'Shuhrem' of 2
> syllables:- pronounced SHEH-REM or SHUH-REM (It's a pity this is not
> in wav file format then you would hear my pronounciation!).Does anyone
> else appart from my acquaintance share this mantra?
>
> Regards,
>
> Phyllis
nooz...@sbcglobal.net
midnightc...@gmail.com
That said, I think meditation, in general can be a very positive practice. You just don't need a spiritual pyramid scheme to get the tools for your practice.
You could use any mantra that doesn't have representative sounds in it, for example, "Ah-Om".
Good luck.
Из Алматы
meditation in the world. Today another player is on the market, they call it
"Mindfullnes" you only need to meditate, there are no king here, no raja,
you dont need to demolish you house and build a meditation building and many
more grotesq claims from this org.
skrev i meddelelsen
news:da3497e5-fa12-4728...@googlegroups.com...
Willytex
doesn't meditate by now. Meditation simply means to "think
things over".
Almost everyone pauses at least once or twice a day to take
stock of their own mental contents, even if they don't use a
mantra or a specific technique.
Meditation is based on thinking, and anyone who thinks,
meditates, by definition.
On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 4:16:26 AM UTC-6, Из Алматы wrote:
> Many years ago this organisatiion was the leading promoter or sales org for
> meditation in the world. Today another player is on the market, they call it
> "Mindfullnes" you only need to meditate, there are no king here, no raja,
> you dont need to demolish you house and build a meditation building and many
> more grotesq claims from this org.
>
> skrev i meddelelsen
>
> promotes itself as "scientific" even though it is rooted in Hindu mysticism.
>
> That said, I think meditation, in general can be a very positive practice.
> You just don't need a spiritual pyramid scheme to get the tools for your
> practice.
>
> You could use any mantra that doesn't have representative sounds in it, for
> example, "Ah-Om".
>
> Good luck.
>
rene...@gmail.com
Willytex
The key technique in meditation is to think, but in a
subtle way. Silent meditation is simply more effective
because it is not on the gross material level of speech.
It has been described as "the experiencing of a thought,
just like any other thought, in finer and finer states,
until the finest and most subtle state of thought is
experienced".
This passing back and forth between the gross and subtle
states of thinking leads to a state where thought
naturally drops off altogether.
When this happens the meditator is said to be experiencing
a state of restful alertness, a condition where the mind
enjoys just Being: no thought, no mental activity, just
resting in a state of pure mental equipoise.
kareng...@gmail.com
WillyTex
>
> The point is to transcend...
>
So let's review what we know about the bija mantras:
There are several uses of bija mantras: for purification, acquisition, propitiation, or in some cases for protection. But, the most noble use is for spontaneous transcending meditation.
Vedic "mantras" are Sanskrit words found in the Vedas. However, "bija" mantras are just seed sounds. They are not "meaningless" sounds; everything in the cosmos has meaning. But, bija mantras are non-semantic sounds - they are not words found in any standard Sanskrit lexicon.
Bija mantras, by definition, are esoteric sound vibrations; bijas are not words. The Sanskrit word "man" comes from the root mind, and "tra", a tool. Bija mantras are simply sound tools for thinking.
Sri Vidya consists of 'indestructible seed' syllables rather than words, so the bijas transcend such mundane considerations as semantic meaning.
Accordingly, a bija-only mantra meditation is not merely esoteric but
inherently superior!
Seed-syllables (bijasaras) are the purest form of mantra. They do not make a request or praise a God, it is God's purest expression of Being.
According to Brooks, the Gayatri cannot match Sri Vidya bijas because it is still in common language; it is Veda and mantra, but when transformed into the Sri Vidya bijas "it's greatness increases."
Works cited:
"Auspicious Wisdom"
The texts and traditions of Srividya Sakta Tantrism in South India
by Douglas Renfrew Brooks
SUNY, 1992
p.95
Don Bench
> A reminder: if you're still practicing TM, it is NOT a good idea to discuss
> how to pronounce your mantra. Suggest you get checked if you have questions
> about why this might be the case. The checker won't answer your questions
> directly, but the entire procedure might give you some insight so that you
> can answer this issue for yourself.
> "Phyllis Sheehan" wrote in message
> > Shring and Shrim !
> > Untill recently,I thought my TM mantra was unique to me,untill I met
> > someone with the same mantra,but I am confused !
> > The mantra I was issued sounds like 'Shehrem' or 'Shuhrem' of 2
> > syllables:- pronounced SHEH-REM or SHUH-REM (It's a pity this is not
> > in wav file format then you would hear my pronounciation!).Does anyone
> > else appart from my acquaintance share this mantra?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Phyllis
Don Bench
>
> Pat - I don't think so - getting checked makes a lot of sense to me.
> Especially for someone who has invested a sizeable amount of money to learn
> the technique. Checking is free for life, so why not take advantage of it?
> That is, unless, like yourself, you never even got initiated, and never
> paid a fee, hence you would not be able to avail yourself of checking in the
> first place.
> > All the checkers do...
> Have you ever been checked? If not, how would you know? Who is your checker?
WillyTex (? Hey, I like the moniker):
I went at least 20 - 30 years without getting checked, and I was trained as a checker back in 76. I only got checked again a couple of years ago. I was surprised by a few things, including how soothing it was and how the result was a "settling" that persisted. I don't know the voodoo of it - if there is any at all, but I added it back into my life. Now, finding someone to check my meditation is another thing.
Don Bench
WillyTex
>
> I was surprised by a few things, including how soothing it
> was and how the result was a "settling" that persisted. I don't
> know the voodoo of it - if there is any at all, but I added it
>
Meditation is based on thinking. In fact, everyone meditates; we couldn't go through a day without once or twice pausing to take stock of of our own mental mind-stuff. We are all transcending anyway, even if we don't recognize it as a specific technique. The technique could be defined as the utilization of a non-ideational mnemonic device, experienced just like any other thought.
However, the technique is not what brings enlightenment. Meditation simply provides the ideal opportunity for the transcending.
It would be a mistake to assume that other people are not able to transcend, even without a specific technique. It would be more accurate to say that many people do not systematically transcend.
"You have a right to remain silent." - MMY
Heather
WillyTex
On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 5:33:39 PM UTC-5, Heather wrote:
> I've just come across this post... .even though it is nearly ten years old.
>I did my TM course in 1986 and until a few years ago I thought my mantra
> was unique to me. It is Sharim.