Inotherwords, science and religion are the same thing. > It helps is you have a misunderstanding of and contempt for the the methods of science. Maharishi's belief system is basically unfalsifiable assertions on parade claiming to be science. (I was going to put some lipstick on a pig but it wouldn't hold still after the unfortunate "mascara incident.")
It also helps if you have a condescending view of religion (and I should know) which holds your Vedic system to be the root, and all religions to be the more limited branches of the tree. This view gives you permission to tell people what they need to hear for their own good so they can do TM and revive the root of their own tradition through the magical connection with being supplied by TM (Trademark protected.) David's attempt to make the case for TM (even just the practice) not being a belief system seems bogus to me. There are so many beliefs that you have to buy into to support the practice of TM and their source is all the same: Maharishi said so. What happens for long term practicers IMO is that they forget how many beliefs have to be in place to make it all work because they have become unconscious presuppositions which are beyond challenge. Our past discussion about the complex stress release "normalizing the nervous system" belief package is a case in point. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@] > > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM > > To: David Orme-Johnson > > Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM & Religion > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > > > > > I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading > > attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He > > considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of > > "religion", and concludes that the TM program is not a religion. > > Who is this so called leading attorney? Why should we respect his > opinion? And where is the "legal definition" of religion? There is no > law which defines religion. Our definitions of religion in the west > are colored by the types of religions we have in the west. > > This short article (not about TM) was helpful to me in understanding a > bit about why the TBs are so adamant that TM (not just the technique, > but the theories behind the technique) is scientific and not religious: > > http://tinyurl.com/6sbd8d > http://www.svabhinava.org/HinduCivilization/MeeraNanda/ScienceHinduNationalism.htm > > > "The flip side of this relativism is what is called "bandhu" or > correspondences in traditional Hindu texts and what postmodernists > call bricolage or pastiche. If all ways of knowing or achieving > nirvâna are considered merely partial or context-bound expressions of > the same aspiration, or the same goal, to know reality of Brahman, > then, one is free to simply treat different ways as functional > homologues, as saying "the same thing," or based upon "similar > fundamentals," differing only in their level of complexity and in > their choice of words. If this is so, then one can safely take in an > element from an alien tradition, for e.g. quantum physics which deals > with non-causal, indeterminate mechanisms, and proclaim it to be > "similar to," "saying the same thing" as the Vedantic description of > consciousness working through matter. The two become simply different > standpoints, different perspectives on a given slice of reality. This > kind of parallelism is repeatedly invoked by Hindu nationalists who > simply proclaim that, to quote the words of Swami Vivekananda, "the > conclusions of modern science are the very conclusions Vedanta reached > ages ago, only in modern science they are written in the language of > matter" (it is of no import that naturalism actually contradicts the > present of spirit, or atman...) you appear generous and non-judgmental > but you have evaded falsification by establishing a false analogy, or > a false equivalence, between two entirely different or in fact > contradictory systems of thought." > > Inotherwords, science and religion are the same thing. >
