--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > Thanks for the response. Comments below. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > Would it have > > > become less about self-discovery for you? > > > > No. It would have been irrelevant. > > > > But it would not have been irrelevant to, say, > > the former Catholic priest who shared a trailer > > with me at Humboldt. > > (This was what, a rounding course? TTC? Neither?)
That would have been one of the big summer month-long residence courses before I became a TM teacher, probably in 1970 or 1971 or thereabouts. (I have a really shitty memory for "year dates." I tend to remember time by the album that was popular at the time.) > > If the origin and the > > nature of the mantras had not been hidden from > > him, he would never have begun TM. Some months > > later, he *did* learn about those origins, > > and dropped TM like a hot potato. He also > > felt betrayed and lied to. > > > > That's because IMO he *was* betrayed and lied > > to, by people like yourself who were trying to > > "protect" him from knowledge he "didn't need" > > to know. > > See, here's my problem. If a former priest could > go this far--to the extent of attending a > residential course taught by MMY--without having > any suspicion that there was anything religious > about it, *how religious could what he was being > taught have been*? He was a *former* priest, searching for fulfillment in meditation what he never found in the Church. He bought the TMO's "not religious" line hook, line, and sinker. Although an apostate from the priesthood, he was nonetheless strongly Catholic. > And he was getting a lot more of the SCI-type > stuff than Lynch's kids will. That is *NOT* a given. You seem to be one of the only people on this forum who actually believes it. > What exactly *did* he later learn about the > mantras and their origins? Was he told they > were the "names of Hindu gods"? Or just that > Hindus associated them with gods? The latter. And then he saw the translation of the puja, in which *his TM teacher* had bowed down to those same gods, and asked him to do so, too. And he did. He wouldn't have, if he had known what he was bowing down to. > Did he do any > research into the origins of the bija mantras? > Did he come to believe he had been invoking > actual supernatural beings? I don't know. He wrote to me expressing his disappointment in having been lied to so thoroughly by his own TM teacher, who I knew. I agreed with him in a return letter, but I never heard back. > This kind of thing just makes no sense to me. That is probably because, like me, you never felt strongly enough about any religion to be upset if you had been tricked into violating its commandments. > It seems to me that the outrage is a function > of getting only *part* of the picture beyond > what you get in the basic TM course. The outrage in this case was at having been tricked into getting down on his knees and bowing to Hindu gods. That would not *bother* you. It would not bother *me*. It does not bother me still. I am making the case for those who *would* be bothered by it. They have the right to know what they are being asked to kneel to. Now, since I have been indulging your ques- tions, please indulge one of mine. Would you have any objections to attendees at the up- coming McCartney concert being handed a flyer containing only the English translation of the TM puja -- no commentary, only a sim- ple explanation that this was a translation of the ceremony their kids would be witnessing and asked at the end to participate in by kneeling down -- as they went into the concert? And if you *would* have objections, why?
