--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
> Interestingly (as I'm sure you know), Pennington was > for some years a TM teacher. He more or less ripped off > the TM technique and adapted it to an explicitly > religious context, as is obvious from his description > above. I'm pretty sure you are confusing him with Paul Marechal who was an M initiator. Basil was never a teacher, he was a full time Cistertian monk in Spencer Mass who learned TM. As a scholar in Christian mysticism he was an expert in the teachings of the Jesus prayer. > 4. Whenever you become aware of anything (thoughts, > feelings, perceptions, images, associations, etc.), > simply return to your sacred word, your anchor. That is quite a paraphrase and might must as well have come from his translations of the mystic's texts. He was one of the world's most recognized scholars of the early Christian mystic's writings. Although Maharishi promotes the idea of coming back to the mantra was his unique contribution, I'm not sure a broader study of the source documents would support this. But Basil's brief TM practice might have influenced his interpretation so perhaps Maharishi does deserve credit for this insight. In any case he was not promoting a simple technique to experience the Hindu Atman, he was using his prayer to connect to "God" through Christ. He would happily talk your ear off about the distinctions if you gave him a chance. The subtle distinctions he made between the practices illuminate his theological objections to the Hindu based TM technique which he felt was a contradiction to the goals of Christian mystical prayer in the Hindu biased form Maharishi taught it. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" <jmknapp53@> > wrote: > > > > Hi, Judy, > > > > I don't object only on the basis of the puja. I'm > > not sure how you got that idea. > > I'm not sure how you got the idea that I suggested > the puja was the only basis for your objection. > > *You* brought up the New Jersey court case; that's > what I was discussing. It cited the puja and the > content of SCI as the determinative elements of > the ruling. > > Since SCI is not being taught in the Lynch project, > that would seem to leave the puja as the sole > element to which the courts might object, at least > following the NJ case precedent. > > One of my points was that the puja objection in > that ruling was a pretty significant stretch, at > least partly based on ignorance. > > In any case, unless you bring suit yourself, it > won't be *your* basis for objecting to the project > that is taken into consideration, so what you > believe is a non sequitur in this context. > > > The propensity of the late Maharishi's teaching > > was religious in nature -- based on the Vedas, > > as he claimed, which are one of humanity's great > > religious texts. > > Well, actually, in terms of what is taught in the > basic TM course, it's based on the self-development > aspects of the teachings of Patanjali (yoga) and the > philosophy of Shankara (Advaita Vedanta). > > Advaita Vedanta, incidentally, is said by some to > be an *atheistic* philosophy. And there ain't a > whole lot of religion in Patanjali. > > > While they will not be teaching the full TM program > > in the schools, they do talk on DLF's site about > > TM program activities, which I imagine would include > > information on advanced techniques, courses, etc. > > I think it may be premature to "imagine" this. (I > would not be in favor of dispensing such information > within the schools.) > > > But even they don't have the kids doing yagyas to > > Ganesh or Lakshmi, I can't imagine how they would > > separate the religious content of TM from the > > "secular" content. > > > > As Curtis has pointed out, all new initiates are > > exposed to religious concepts within the 3-Days > > Checking. > > That depends on (a) your definition of "religious" and > (b) how you understand those concepts. The concepts > certainly aren't *overtly* religious. They're more > metaphysical and self-developmental theories, a form > of the philosophy of Idealism, which can have either > a religious or a secular context. The basic TM > course presents the concepts in a secular context. > > > I wouldn't be comfortable with a Christian cleric, > > such as Thomas Keating, teaching Centering Prayer > > in the schools. The teaching is intertwined with > > religious concepts. > > According to Basil Pennington (one of the three main > proponents of Centering Prayer along with Keating and > William Meninger), it consists of these steps: > > 1. Sit comfortably with your eyes closed, relax, and > quiet yourself. Be in love and faith to God. > > 2. Choose a sacred word that best supports your > sincere intention to be in the Lord's presence and > open to His divine action within you (i.e. "Jesus", > "Lord," "God," "Savior," "Abba," "Divine," "Shalom," > "Spirit," "Love," etc.). > > 3. Let that word be gently present as your symbol > of your sincere intention to be in the Lord's > presence and open to His divine action within you. > > 4. Whenever you become aware of anything (thoughts, > feelings, perceptions, images, associations, etc.), > simply return to your sacred word, your anchor. > > (M. Basil Pennington (1986), "Centering Prayer: > Refining the Rules," "Review for Religious," 46:3, > 386-393.) > > > I can't see how they could be separated from a > > "secular" form of the technique. > > Indeed. But it's at least as hard to see how Centering > Prayer could be considered equivalent in that regard > to what's taught in the basic TM course. > > Interestingly (as I'm sure you know), Pennington was > for some years a TM teacher. He more or less ripped off > the TM technique and adapted it to an explicitly > religious context, as is obvious from his description > above. >
