--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <wgm4u@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > They can't have their cake and eat it too, they > > > > want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet > > > > providing all of the benefits of Religion. > > > > > > Pretty good take Billy. > > > > Not really. TM isn't thought of as "providing all > > the benefits of religion." Rather, it enables > > religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to > > live up to its potential. > > > > > My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as > > > surpassing religion. Like religion was for > > > first graders and TM for graduate students. > > > > Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground > > in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion > > *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say > > religion without TM is for first-graders. But > > religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when > > it's undergirded by TM. > > > > TM without religion is better than religion without > > TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the > > fulfillment of both. > > > > TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very > > complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to > > reveal its profundity. > > > > MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but > > he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM. > > > I haven't been reading your posts of late, Judy, but caught this one > in a quick scan through recent posts. I don't disagree with you on > how you think MMY viewed TM and religion. I touched on the issue of > TM somehow surpassing religion and you stated it much better than I. > > But of course I have a "but." Clarity of TM? Really? I don't buy > that anymore. > > TM the technique may be simple but I do not find it profound. > Religion need be no more complicated than TM. Believe or don't > believe. Have good experiences or don't have good experiences. Find > god or don't find god. Buy into the extra baggage or don't buy into it. > > I am bothered by statements like "growing in the ground of TM is the > fulfillment of both" and "requires the clarity TM provides to reveal > its profundity." There are plenty of traditionally religious people > who would find this contrary to their beliefs and even amount to idol > worship or the worship of one's self. I do not believe in a personal > god, so this is not my issue. My issue is that with MMY science is > stuck in the same pot as religion, and we may hear statements like > "science growing in the ground of TM is the fulfillment of both" or > "science requires the clarity TM provides to reveal its profundity." > > I have heard TBs say as much. Several have said that non-meditating > scientists who criticize research do not understand what they are > critiquing. Subtle is a word that comes up frequently. Claims of > subtlety are too often just obtuse. >
Back to the religion issue, from an old post of mine: There has been several discussions on TM and religion over the past couple of days. There also has been discussions about whether TM or other effortless meditation techniques were used in the ancient world. Well, I recently pulled out my old smelly copy of The Science of Being and the Art of Living, and here are some quotes of MMY in the section on religion: "The inner light of religion is missing from religious teachings; this is the case all over the world, with the result that peace and happiness are absent from the lives of people and everywhere tensions are increasing." "It is time that transcendental meditation is adopted in churches, temples, mosques, and pagodas." "Here in a simple practice is the fulfillment of every religion. It belongs to the spirit of every religion and has since been lost." "Unfortunately, religious teachers seem to have put the cart before the horse. They advise man to behave righteously, teaching that through right action he will gain purity and be able to realize God. The right approach would be to offer a direct way of gaining God-consciousness. Established in higher consciousness, man would naturally behave righteously. Man behaves from his level of consciousness. Therefore any teaching of right action without a means of raising consciousness will always be ineffective. It is much easier to raise man's consciousness than to get him to act righteously." "The key to the fulfillment of every religion is found in the practice of transcendental meditation." "This meditation is no threat to the authority of priests or ministers. It is something which belongs to their religions but which has been forgotten for many centuries." Not a lot of respect for religion here and is consistent with Judy's post. I do think that it is bullshit that TM belonged to the religions but was forgotten for centuries. Who suddenly remembered and why should we take their word for it? If TM was so great, why was it forgotten? Is this back to the Hindu fundamentalist belief that their path is the path and the rest is just stuff for the relative world, mostly irrelevant? Whatever.
