--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: <snip> > > > It is a very important topic unless you don't care > > > if schools end up with "creation science" sharing > > > the classroom with evolutionary theory. > > > > Allowing TM plus SCI, as in the New Jersey case, > > could be a dangerous precedent in that regard (even > > though I don't agree that SCI is really religious > > in nature). But I don't think it's nearly so likely > > with just TM, especially with Lynch in charge. > > I don't know where you get your confidence > in David Lynch or how much you think any celeb > gets to be "in charge" of a movement project, > but I don't share it.
He's funding it. The whole project was his idea. If he pulls out, the TMO is left sitting with its thumb up its nose and another black mark on its record. I would be astonished if he permitted the TMO to fart around in such a way that threatened the viability of the project, which would surely happen if it didn't keep a tight clamp on anything that might make people nervous. > > > I disagree with your assessment of the religious nature > > > of TM, but am not inclined to sum up your POV as the > > > result of some negitive emotional state. We just > > > disagree on the religious nature of TM instruction. > > > This doesn't surprise me because you didn't spend many > > > weeks bowing down to the floor to a picture of Maharishi's > > > dead guru after invoking divine and semi divine Gods in > > > the Hindu religion.(Vyasa is 3/4 Vishnu don't ya know.) > > > It is easier for you to ignore its religious roots. > > > > So if I can ignore its "religious roots," why can't > > the kids? > > That is not the issue. Some may be able to > ignore the religious roots of TM. They should all be able to ignore it, since it wouldn't come to their attention in the absence of interference from people like Knapp. There just isn't anything *intrinsically* religious about the basic TM course from the students' perspective. It has to be added on. Don't wrap it up in a religious package, and it isn't religious. > It is the question of teaching religious > practices in schools not whether or not you can > ignore it. It isn't taught as a religious practice. We're going around in circles. > Curtis, your experiences as a TM teacher > > are a big fat red herring here. TMers don't have to > > do any of that unless they decide to become teachers. > > No it isn't. As a teacher I understand exactly > what I am getting an initiate to participate in. That's in *your* mind, not the student's mind. > You have not addressed my most important point > that the only participation in a Hindu puja is > what the student does in TM instruction. Boy, I'd hate to think that was really your most important point. It's meaningless (except with regard to Hindu students). As far as the students are concerned, they're paying for instruction in a secular technique and bringing fruit, flowers, and hankie as a traditional offering of gratitude to the person who is about to teach them. That Hindus, or the TM teacher, understand a puja ceremony differently is just totally irrelevant. It doesn't somehow change what's going on in the students' minds. The only way you can make a case, it seems to me, is if you yourself are completely convinced that something magical happens to the student as a result of witnessing the puja, without their knowledge or understanding or consent. Somehow I don't think that's a case you'd want to make. > > > My concern is for the principle of separating religious > > > teaching from publicly funded schools because of the > > > aggressive nature of evangelical groups trying to pass > > > off their religious beliefs as science. > > > > I share that concern, as I've said many times. That's > > why I support the New Jersey decision. But again, that > > was TM *plus SCI*, which is a whole 'nother kettle of > > fish, it seems to me. Just-plain-TM--with Lynch keeping > > a watchful eye--simply doesn't rise to that level of > > concern, IMHO. > > SCI is the theoretical basis for the practice. > You are making an artificial distinction between > the length of time of study, the 33 lessons of > the now defunct course and the 3 days of checking. > But with the 3 day's covering of higher states of > consciousness it covers a lot of the same ground, > just abbreviated. *Very* abbreviated. And as I recall, it was all just on the third day, the "vision of possibilities." It didn't sound religious to me when I sat through it. I didn't have to draw pictures or repeat formulas or take a test. It pretty much went in one ear and out the other. Took about an hour. The level of importance accorded to the third day in comparison to the SCI course makes a huge difference. Yes, there was a lot of repetition in the SCI course, but that's part of the difference-- the principles were drummed in. The SCI course could well be considered indoctrination. The third day of checking, in contrast, is a brief summary of what the TM teacher believes, take it or leave it. And I still say it's not intrinsically religious--you have to dress it up in religious clothing to make it so. The basic, naked principles have to do with the nature and mechanics of consciousness, which I think of as ontologically prior to religion. (And I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that's how MMY thought of it as well. That he did the full- blown Hindu thing himself doesn't mean he didn't understand it as such.)
