Comments [interleaved]: **
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marek > "Like many here who have taught and promoted TM in the past, I was > ready, willing and able to be less than candid or truthful about the > TMO or its programs if I felt that the ultimate result would be that > someone would learn meditation or continue meditation based on what I > told them. I look back on that now and regret having bought into > that mindset. That was an incorrect choice and bad behavior on my > part. There are times when perfect candor may be inappropriate but > for the most part honesty and transparency is better, particularly in > promoting a program for the upliftment of society. To the degree > Maharishi or anyone in the TMO has departed from that, then to that > degree I feel that they have devalued their stated purpose and have > failed." > > > Nice to hear from you again Marek. As usual you served up some > thoughtful material. I attribute my youthful (up to age 31 so not > sooo young!) infatuation with pushing TM in its brochure sanitized > form to be a result of my own lack of comfort living with > imperfection. One of the greatest gifts of aging has been the > necessity to accept life on imperfect terms that I would have rejected > when I believed in perfection. Now the idea of perfection in any area > of my life seems like such a boor. Definitely not something to aspire > for anymore. > [Yes, I agree, and similarly, when I left the movement and later stopped meditating for many years, one wonderful consequence was finally being able to "be" with people rather than draw some imaginary (but inviolate) distinction between them and me; that distinction being their status in re TM -- meditator/non-meditator. That fundamental difference made all the difference in how I related to that person from then on. One of the things I love about my work is the opportunity to learn firsthand how very much alike we all are regardless of how we place on the socio-economic or intellectural scales, or the spiritual scale for that matter.] > I've been reading Jon Kabat-zin's books lately and tried his > meditation a few times. It made me wonder what the result of MMY's > life work is really. It does seem like a cool thing that he got so > many people to take a chill pill and meditate. But then somehow it > didn't seem to stick. I wonder if it was too much to ask for even 20 > minutes twice a day. 10 minutes once a day might be more realistic. > But then all the inflated claims about what meditation did for a > person made it into a group of believers. I wonder if the sidhis > knocked out most of the casual meditators. That was probably too bad. > I think that the centering effect of meditaton may be something > people would benefit from. But who wants to associate with a group > that is claiming yogic flyers? Mostly people who can swallow some of > the beliefs about TM's spiritual connection I guess. > [Had never heard of Jon Kabat-zin until now; for sure I'm going to check into what he says/teaches. Can you say anything more about what you learned? It's trite to say, but I think that Maharishi just hit the mark when the time was ripe; and he had a good meditation that was particularly well-suited for the masses; there were a number of competing systems around the time when I learned, Ananda Marga, ISKCON, Stephen Gaskin, Ram Das, Krishnamurti, Rajneesh in the 80s. All those movements had pretty big numbers for a while but they didn't have the staying power of TM. I know of some people who learned TM in the 70s and who continue to meditate regularly, if only once a day; and I met a woman sometime last year who told me that she had learned TM in the 80s and meditated twice a day for over 7 years and stopped for no particular reason around the time of a divorce. When we spoke she seemed kind of surprised that she had stopped; she said she'd always really enjoyed it and went to a couple of residence course. But the introduction of the siddhis really knocked the whole thing into a cocked hat. But it was so outrageous to claim levitation! Holy shit, I thought, that's got to be real because you couldn't just say "that" and not deliver! Holy Shit! People are flying! That's really pretty much the way I took it; it was so fucking amazing to find out that the age of miracles was right now! This was IT! Any lingering doubts I might have had went completely away. Experience re-introduced them to me later on. The effect on the growth curve of the TMO and the meditation movement was pretty obvious and dramatic.] > Now we have some idea that the group most devoted to TM, and > presumably most representative of its long term effects, aren't > exactly coming through with much of interest for me. Buying into the > Raja nonsense is an important line of beliefs in the movement. I > think I can relate to any long term meditator who gets the joke about > those guys. If they can't, I really feel there is a serious > disconnect with my values. > [The whole raaja/raani thing is, again, so absolutely weird and ballsy at the same time. I hesitate to beleive that Maharishi is crazy; there are still too many highly functioning people around him who apparently follow his dicta and promote his ideas sincerely; that gives me some confidence that he still acts more or less rationally. And if he's thinking rationally, then there's some reason behind it all, at least in his mind, and I don't believe that for Maharishi it was "all" about money. Money obviously became very important and fairly early on. Maharishi's upbringing was reportely within a business/trading family, so that's not too surprising either. He's a smart guy and at some point he realized he could prosper while doing this great thing. I'm still in love with the guy, or at least the guy I knew -- good enough.] > Mystical experiences within religious beliefs has always been such a > tiny portion any religion, that I don't think we really know much > about this yet. Since most of the ancient experiences were made at a > time when mental illness was not separated out, I think we have to be > cautious of using some famous examples of mystics as proof of > anything. I have spent some time with people who were in the grips of > mental illness and they are quite sure about themselves and their > divine nature sometimes. Very sure. Me, not so much. I think your > criteria of connecting virtues with inner experiences is valid > although a lot of post have been devote to the idea that you can't. > Any state that doesn't show improvement in how a person treats others > seems highly suspect to me. > [Actually, I think it was you, Curtis, and/or New.Morning (among others) who got me thinking that the only metric worth using is the measurement of how much social good does any action promote. So I still feel meditation is an "intelligent thing to do" (quoting Richard Williams), both as an end in itself and as an adjunct to a good and purposeful life.] > All good rambles must come to an end. You posts always get me > thinking so thanks for that Marek! > Thanks to you, Curtis. I got far behind in my FFL reading and it took me some time to catch up just with that, much less post myself. There's been lots of good posting. And there are so many people who post on FFL whom I admire and whose input has really helped inform me. It's a unique community, I feel privileged to participate. Marek
