"the only metric worth using is the measurement of how much social good does any action promote."
Off_W you're trying to stay un-involved but what you think about this observation of Marek? Like, where are you going with your defending peer review TM research if not also a TM-jihad in these times, with any worthwhile metric? With every fibre of your being. " the only metric worth using is the measurement of how much social good does any action promote." -Doug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [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.] > > Comments [interleaved]: > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > 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 >
