I am Ra. No.

[Rolci]

to recommend a meditation technique would be to place more importance on one technique than another.

The answer that Ra give the the VERY NEXT question following that simple "no" reads:

"Each of the two types of meditation is useful for a particular reason. The passive meditation involving the clearing of the mind, the emptying of the mental jumble which is characteristic of mind complex activity among your peoples, is efficacious for those whose goal is to achieve an inner silence as a base from which to listen to the Creator. This is an useful and helpful tool and is by far the most generally useful type of meditation as opposed to contemplation or prayer.
The type of meditation which may be called visualization has as its goal not that which is contained in the meditation itself. Visualization is the tool of the adept. Those who learn to hold visual images in mind are developing an inner concentrative power that can transcend boredom and discomfort. When this ability has become crystallized in an adept the adept may then do polarizing in consciousness without external action which can effect the planetary consciousness. This is the reason for the existence of the so-called White Magician. Only those wishing to pursue the conscious raising of planetary vibration will find visualization to be a particularly satisfying typevof meditation.
Contemplation or the consideration in a meditative state of an inspiring image or text is extremely useful also among your peoples, and the faculty of will called praying is also of a potentially helpful nature. Whether it is
indeed an helpful activity depends quite totally upon the intentions and objects of the one who prays."

As you see they show no reluctance AT ALL to offer a long-winded explanation, much more than was necessary. However, if they truly wanted to preserve as much free will as possible, they would have instead used at least added that there are further modalities, indeed, an infinite spectrum that does not necessarily need to be broken up into categories.

The answer they give to the question previous to the "no" answer is even longer than the above quote. Hence my puzzlement at the uniquely short answer offering no explanation or comment as to why. I would have loved Don to ask: "Why not?"