> "curtisdeltablues" wrote: "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."
Doug writing: Yeah, people do have their own experience with this & often do have a sense that comes to them of what is fair, good or that they operate off of. Seems is a collective Yankee American yogic view on this, that we are indeed conduits of as we are originators of value (virtue), a meditative transcendental intuitive knowingness of "In god we trust" on our coins. It is proly often held that history is a reflection of this activity of virtue. Of emenant god in nature of early/founding era American deism. Evolution of man incarnate is also the biography of this progress. Of knowing the Good, cultivating the faculties, knowing one's self etc., western chronology of meditation. A history of the species is also in the account of the human soul's progress in virtue. Could be read in matters written on even global scale. Yes, your connecting virtues with inner experience as in, we hold these truths to be... seems to ring true. -Doug in FF >"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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > All good rambles must come to an end. You posts always get me > thinking so thanks for that Marek! > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> > wrote: > > > > Comment below: > > > > ** > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > I spent a month with David OJ studying the collected papers. Some > > > published research is better than others. One critical context to > > > evaluate about research is what conclusions are being drawn from > > > the studies. This is an area were even some good movement studies > > > fall down IMO. In other words, it is possible to do a good study on > > > improvements on a rod and frame test. It is another thing to > > > extrapolate that this means that mediators have a more stable > > internal > > > state of reference. > > > > > > Although I share your enthusiasm for the scientific method as a tool > > > to expand knowledge, I don't forget that it is always humans using > > > this tool. It is never practiced in purity. The TM studies are not > > > all on one level of reliability, published or not. David went into > > a > > > lot of detail about which tests were more rigorous than others. > > > Getting published is only one aspect in evaluating the credibility > > of > > > scientific research. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "I AM THE ONLY ONE on FFL that is that open minded on the > > topic," > > > > > > > > > > NO. > > > > > > > > So Curtis states that he is open to scientific research. Thank > > God > > > > someone here FFL is not an anti-science freak ... > > > > **snip to end** > > > > Thanks for the insider perspective, Curtis. It seems to me that the > > whole universe (particularly human endeavor) is fundamentally and > > purely experimental in nature. You do something and something else > > happens; oftentimes it seems like there is a causal connection > > between the two events and to the degree that you like or dislike the > > second event you modify your behavior accordingly with the intention > > of either repeating or avoiding a same or similar result. The > > modified behavior may or may not produce the result you anticipate > > and you modify behavior again. > > > > All subsequent behavior and experience branch out from there. We all > > keep doing this throughout our lives and apparently that's the way > > the universe goes about its business, too. The experiment with > > religion that we humans are so enthralled with just seems to have a > > long data collection timeline compared to a human lifetime and it > > seems to have to go through many generations of human experimenters > > and many different iterations of form before enough data will have > > been compiled before a significant portion of the population come to > > a different conclusion regarding its ultimate value (even though a > > lot of folks have come to a provisional decision regarding its worth > > based on other people's recommendations). > > > > Those of us who read and post at FFL, on the other hand, have all > > been lucky vis-a-vis our experience with Maharishi and the TMO in > > that we've had the opportunity to evaluate some of the results of > > this religion experiment with individuals who have been represented > > to be the fulfilled beneficiaries of the promise of religion > > (Maharishi, Guru Dev, Jim, Rory, Dr. Pete, Tom, etc.). (And for > > purposes of this post I take it as a given that the promise of > > Maharishi's programs, including his meditation, is the fulfillment of > > the standard promises of religion; not only his initial message with > > the SRM but even at the peak of the scientific charts and the Merv > > Griffin wave of initiations, that was spoken of openly and clearly; > > and the current use of language re the will of God is also a > > reiteration of that.) > > > > It seems to boil down to one of two different metrics in evaluating > > the worth of religion (including TM as either a component of one's > > independent religious practice, or as the necessary component of the > > quasi-Hindu TMO religion): either, (1) how it makes you feel on the > > inside (including the body), or (2) how it makes you act on the > > outside. > > > > My own experience to date is that is makes me feel fine on the inside > > and feel that I'm a better actor and a better person in the world at > > large, as well. However, it seems clear that some folks who claim > > the the interior benefits don't act in the world in a way that I'd > > recommend anyone emulate. Consequently, I'd have to go with > > goodness, compassion, peacefulness and charity as being in the long > > run the better metric for the world at large. I have clients whose > > experiences on illicit drugs rival anything I've experienced in > > meditation or after (and the compelling nature of those experiences > > argue convincingly for their authenticity) but whose outward behavior > > is a source of ultimate distress for themselves and the world around > > them. Good experiences but bad behavior. > > > > 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. > > > > Marek > > >
