--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Never was myself a TM teacher and personally I WAS interested in > MMY's commentary on the Gita and his SBAL - as an underlying > universal spiritual perspective to the practice of TM, but one which > was not forced down your throat (unless perhaps you became a > teacher?). Because of that it WAS OK to see the technique > independently, as a SECULAR procedure.
TM teachers "got it across" to everyone by a variety of methods right from the start: the puja "required one" to kneel -- okay, they were invited, merely, to kneel, but I never had anyone not kneel over 2,000 pujas. It was a religious rite, a worship -- plain and simple. > > The fact that mantras were "sounds" of Hindu significance was to be > expected, given MMY's cultural background, Jerry Jarvis made fun of the concept by saying we could be using sounds that were, in Chinese, the names of spices but that didn't make TM an act of cookery. But it was a big fat lie and every teacher knew that the mantras were the names and attributes of Gods that the Holy Tradition ADORED, and today, we openly SELL PRAYERS TO THESE GODS and call them yagyas. but there was nothing in > TM practice itself that resembled a religious practice - no required > articles of faith, moral commandments to follow, nothing that > resembled traditional prayer. "Meditate twice a day and take it easy." THAT'S A RELIGIOUS COMMANDMENT. If one didn't do it twice a day, the TM teacher was expected to challenge the meditator about that.....it was a TM teacher's morality being imposed on them. Take it easy meant a host of lifestyle changes that TM teachers slowly indoctrinated them with -- sleep by 10pm, no root veggies, no salt, no meat.....these were especially seen in resident courses. WE LET THEM KNOW WHAT WAS WHAT...even though it wasn't "official," we sure knew it was. Sitting with eyes closed, repeating a sound, after a puja -- this screams RELIGION. OK certain behaviours were discouraged - > smoking, alcohol, drugs, consumption of meat etc. But these were on > grounds of health, for a more refined nervous system. Morality imposed upon lifestyle and diet without any of TM's faux-science to back it up. MMY seemed > friendly in relating to people of different faiths and was not out to > alienate anyone from their beliefs. Except we teachers could not teach priests etc.....had to have special TM teachers for that....this shows that we knew we were pushing our own religion and had to handle those folks very carefully. The secular religions like psychology were banned if one wanted to get a mantra, and anyone caught with another guru was not allowed to start TM until they'd dumped their OTHER RELIGIOUS PRACTICES. The SRM spiritualism was more > like a deeper common denominator between religions, but his SCI > orientation seemed an attempt to find an even more non-religious, > secular language, focusing on the scientific and social significance > of the practice. 40 years later, nothing could be clearer that it was about getting more money....so, urp, no, geeze, I see it now: TM NEVER WAS ABOUT RELIGION AFTER ALL, EH? > > The situation in the TMO now is COMPLETELY different. It no longer > is "engaging" with secular society or with other faiths. It has > become a shrinking enclave of fanatical practitioners, has rid itself > of more rational, dissenting insiders, and has become completely > Hindu in character. From a Western perspective it's now just a > peculiar cult. But maybe after MMY dies this more Vedic emphasis, > with its chanting pandits and Rajas in Hindu dress, might help > establish the Movement more widely in India itself. Every Hindu knows at least one puja by heart and has several gurus already. And thanks to Bush, every American is as ugly as a warthog now. > > But hoping to see it spread now in the West is as unlikely as the > West converting on mass to Islam.. But haven't you heard? Obama is going to convert us all! Edg > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > willytex@ wrote: > > > > Curtis wrote: > > > So Richard claims to know more about TM > > > than MMY, but I claim to know more about > > > his teaching than people who haven't gone > > > through TTC. > > > > > Maybe so, but you don't know more about TM > > than I do regardless of your TTC claims. The > > proof is here for anyone to read. > > > > So, what, exactly, in his teaching would you > > be knowing more about? You didn't seem to be > > aware that the Maharishi never mentioned any > > "demons" in SBAL. What's up with that? > > > > So, if you knew so much why didn't you tell > > everyone that TM was a religion that taught > > people to chant the nick names of the Hindu > > demi-Gods? What's the big secret? > > > > And why were you so silent about where the > > TM mantras come from? You really suck as an > > informant. Why all the secrecy? > > >
