--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
<no_re...@...> wrote:
<snip>
> That is true, because they are "self-
> answering." The points raised in the
> questions are all TRUE. Any attempt
> to "answer" them by saying anything
> other than the fact that they ARE all
> true is, in my opinion, an attempt to
> cover up the fact that they are all
> TRUE.
Note that Barry asserts above that the points
raised in his questions are all TRUE, as a matter
of FACT, not his opinion ("the fact that they
ARE all true").
Barry, in another recent post:
"The idea of teaching is NOT to lead the question-
asker to MY conclusion. That's an ego game, and a
religious fanatic's game. IMO, *my* answers are
NOT the 'correct' ones; they are merely *my*
answers. The student has the right to come to
his or her OWN answers, and as a teacher I have
the duty not only to allow them to do so but to
help them to do so."
One might want to read Barry's answers below in
light of the above declaration and see whether
those answers demonstrate that he is not trying
to lead the questioner to HIS conclusions.
> But just for fun, this is how **I**
> would answer these questions, given
> the setup in the test, and the theo-
> retical person I would be speaking
> to.
Let's review Barry's *actual* setup of the
questions from his initial post:
"By taking this test and passing it, you certify
your status as an 'Almost TM Teacher,' one able
to parrot the 'right' answers almost as well as
any real TM Teacher."
In other words, by giving his *own* answers and
not those of a "real TM teacher," he's avoiding
responding to his own questions (exactly what he
claimed would "certify" me and presumably others
as "despicable cowards").
It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
I don't give a crap about his
> answers, or anyone else's. I have
> no need to "refute" them or counter
> them. You and cultists like yourself
> are the ones who feel a need to "refute"
> things that are obviously true and "spin"
> them so that they appear not to be true.
>
> > > THE WANNABEE TM TEACHER TEST
> >
> > OK - here's my best shot. But I admit some of it is a bit tricky...
> >
> > > When answering the following questions, assume that
> > > the person you are speaking to is a 16-year-old girl,
> > > an intelligent one who is interested in learning TM
> > > in her school as part of the DLF initiative but who
> > > has done a little Web surfing and is asking you to
> > > clear up a few questions so that she can in turn
> > > clear them up with her parents so that they will
> > > sign the permission slip she needs to partake in
> > > the DLF "Quiet Time" program. She is looking to you
> > > for honest answers.
> > >
> > > 1. My parents are quite conservative Christians.
> > > They are concerned that I might be getting involved
> > > in a different religion. Is TM based in religion?
> >
> > Only in the sense that it would be true to say
> > that "western science is based on religion". Originally
> > our modern science evolved out of the religion and
> > philosophy of the middle ages. But to do TM and experience its
> > benefits you are not required to believe anything
> > "religious" (though you can add "on top of the practice"
> > an interpretation from your own religion if you wish).
>
> The puja used for TM instruction was
> cobbled together from standard Hindu
> pujas (ceremonies of offerings) that can
> be found easily in books about Hinduism.
> The same is true of the mantras used in
> TM. So I would have to say that Yes, it
> appears that TM is rather *strongly*
> based in religion.
>
> > > 2. How many mantras are there? I've read on the Web
> > > that there are only a few and that they are given
> > > out on the basis of age. Does that mean that all
> > > of the kids in my class (who are all the same age
> > > I am) are going to get the same mantra?
> >
> > It doesn't really matter how many mantras there are, or
> > whether you all all have the same mantra, or each has a different
> > mantra. There is a simple method that your teacher uses to
> > select a mantra that's suitable for you - and that's the important
> > thing.
>
> As I remember from my TM Teacher Training
> course, there were 16 mantras, and they were
> definitely assigned according to age groups.
> Therefore, it is very likely that all of the others
> students your own age would receive the same
> mantra you do.
>
> > > 3. Where do the mantras come from? I have read on the
> > > Web that in India they are considered either the
> > > names of, the nicknames of, or invocations of sev-
> > > eral of the Hindu deities (gods and goddesses). Is
> > > this correct?
> >
> > See (1) above. Many Hindus WILL add their own "take" on TM
> > that fits their religion. But that is their choice.
> >
> > For example, just like us, the ancients knew of the medicinal
> > value of the willow (aspirin). of course they didn't have a
> > chemical name for it, and it many cases it was viewed through a
> > superstitious or "religious" belief system. But because we all
> > take aspirin these days, that does not mean that we subscribe
> > to any of those belief systems too!
>
> It is very definitely true that many if not
> most practitioners of meditation in India
> consider the mantras used in TM to be
> invocations of specific Hindu deities. As
> they are used in TM, they need not have
> any specific meaning, but their origin and
> the association with Hindu deities is clear.
>
> > > 4. What's up with this 'puja' thing? Again, on the Web
> > > I've read the translation of it, and it is *filled*
> > > with the names of Hindu deities. And, according to
> > > these Websites, at the end I am going to be asked
> > > to kneel. Does that mean that I am bowing to these
> > > deiites?
> >
> > See (1) and (3) above.
>
> The puja used in TM was put together by
> taking a number of phrases from common
> Hindu pujas and adding to them specific
> references to Maharishi's teacher.
>
> > Kneeling is just kneeling. This is your first lesson in 'Zen'. As has
> > been ably pointed out by the resident "no-mind" proponent on a
> > web site called "FFL" (adult supervision required), what you
> > *do* and *what you experience* are logically distinct form *what
> > you believe about what you do* and *what you believe about
> > your expereience*. It is said that this is only the Master's
> > *opinion* - but it is not to be questioned!
>
> Whether you kneel when asked to do so is
> up to you. But for the teacher performing
> the puja, they are very definitely "bowing
> down" to the teachers and deities named
> in the puja itself. The puja repeats the phrase
> "I bow down" over and over, and at the end
> the teacher does just that and asks you to
> as well. The teacher is *very* aware of the
> translation of the puja, and thus *very*
> aware of what and who he/she is bowing
> down to. You are not. Now you are.
>
> > > 5. I looked at the tm.org website, and there is no
> > > mention there of 'Rajas,' the people who (as I under-
> > > stand it) run the TM organization. On other Websites,
> > > and in fact on old versions of the tm.org website I
> > > found on the Internet Wayback Machine, there are LOTS
> > > of mentions of them, plus photos of them dressed up
> > > in long robes and gold crowns. What's up with this?
> > > Who are these people? And why does it look as if the
> > > tm.org Website has been "cleaned up" to remove all
> > > mention of them? For example, here is a photo of
> > > one of them, the 'Raja' in charge of America:
> > > http://tinyurl.com/dhb89n
> >
> > Your momma and poppa should ahve told you that not all that
> > you find on the web is *true*. It's also true that everyone makes
> > mistakes!
>
> The TM 'Rajas' (kings) are in fact the people whom
> Maharishi left in charge of the TM organization.
> They and their head 'Raja' (who is specifically
> referred to as the King of an imaginary country
> called 'The World Government of the Age of
> Enlightenment') dress in flowing white robes and
> gold crowns. They *complete* set of qualifications
> for being named as Rajas, dressing like this, and
> being considered worthy of running the TM organ-
> ization consists of having paid Maharishi a million
> dollars each for the privilege.
>
> As to why the photos of them as they normally
> dress were removed from the main TM website,
> I think you can figure that out for yourself.
>
> > > 6. For that matter, if all of these 'Rajas' really DO
> > > run the TM organization, why aren't there any women
> > > among them? I'm a girl. Does that mean that I'm some
> > > kind of second-class citizen in the TM organization?
> >
> > Now you're a Raja wannabe?
>
> The answer to your question is a definite "Yes."
> Women are definitely second-class citizens in
> the TM movement.
>
> > > 7. Similar to the deletion of any mention of the 'Rajas'
> > > on tm.org, there seems to have been a deletion of any
> > > mention of 'pundits,' even though one can still
> > > find videos of them on the Web like this one:
> > > http://globalcountryofworldpeace.org/maharishi_vedic_pandits12.html
> > > This is an official TM Website, right? So why have all
> > > mentions of these 'pundits' been removed from the main
> > > site? And what's up with their funny clothes and all
> > > sitting in neat little rows chanting Indian religious
> > > scriptures like that? Is this what you have in mind
> > > for us during "Quiet Time?"
> >
> > No, it's not. TM in itself does not involve anything but the
> > ability to "think".
> >
> > But see (1) and (3) above. Many folks who ARE religious like
> > to get on down with a lot more than simple TM. But you only
> > do that if you want to (correction: at your peril!)
>
> The pundits are an integral part of the TM
> organization, so much so that if you become
> a meditator you will be urged to contribute
> to supporting them financially. There are
> hundreds of them at the official TM univer-
> sity in Iowa, chanting religious scripture
> every day.
>
> Again, as to why their photos and any mention
> of them were removed from the main TM web-
> site, I leave that up to you to decide for yourself.
>
> > > 8. Did Maharishi *really* call Britain a "scorpion
> > > nation" and forbid the teaching of TM there? Did he
> > > *really* say "Damn Democracy?" Did he *really* say that
> > > most of the capital cities of the world should be torn
> > > down and rebuilt from the ground up based on "rules" he
> > > found in ancient Indian scriptures? These things have
> > > all been said on the Websites I've visited, and they
> > > sound too outlandish to be true. What's the real story?
> >
> > MMY was the founder of the TM org - a very fine teacher and
> > he has been an inspiration to many. But you should pay no
> > more attention to his views on modern politics than you would
> > to, say, his views on modern pop music. (Not that he isn't
> > entitled to his views of course).
>
> Yes, he really said all these things, and more.
> He also very publicly praised supported dic-
> tators such as Robert Mugabe. You are free
> to make whatever you want of this.
>
> > > 9. Another thing that seems to be missing from the
> > > tm.org Website recently is any mention of "enlighten-
> > > ment." That used to be ALL OVER that Website. One site
> > > I found said that Maharishi used to promise enlighten-
> > > ment as a result of practicing the TM technique for as
> > > little as 5-8 years. If this is true, surely you can
> > > point me to some of the people who have been practicing
> > > TM for that period of time or longer, so that I can ask
> > > them what 'enlightenment' is like and whether I want
> > > it, right? What are their names so I can contact them?
> >
> > You will NOT be taught at any point as part of your course that
> > you can obtain enlightenment within so many years (and see
> > point 5 above).
>
> The TM movement stopped claiming in its
> sales brochures that you would achieve
> enlightenment within 5 to 8 years shortly
> after students began reaching the 8-year
> mark of meditating and none of them had
> ever achieved enlightenment. Now they do
> not make any concrete promises as to how
> long it will take, only that TM is the fastest,
> most effective means on the planet by
> which *TO* achieve enlighenment.
>
> That said, the TM movement cannot name
> or point to a single person on planet Earth
> who has achieved enlightenment as a result
> of practicing its techniques. Not one.
>
> You may draw from this whatever conclusions
> you wish.
>
> > > 10. The tm.org Website used to talk about the TM-siddhis
> > > program, and how one can take a course to learn how to
> > > levitate. Now there is no mention of it. If I were inter-
> > > ested in such a course, is it still being given, and if
> > > so, is the cost of it covered by the Lynch Foundation the
> > > way that my initial TM instruction would be? If not, how
> > > much is that course going to cost me?
> >
> > I'd need to get back to you with this information. There IS a
> > TM-siddhi programme. It is designed to attenuate the effects
> > of ordinary TM. And just as you might purchase a rowing
> > machine for home use in order to keep fit - without expecting
> > to end up a champion rower (or even get in a boat), so too the
> > aim of the TM-siddhi program is not "to learn to levitate"
>
> The TM-siddhis course is still taught, and if
> you become a TM meditator you will be strongly
> encouraged to take it. The goal of levitating is
> played down these days, since no one has ever
> done it, but when the courses were first taught
> levitation was actually promised to attendees.
>
> Why mentions of this course have been removed
> from the main TM website should be obvious
> to someone as bright as you are.
>
> As for what the course would cost you, announce-
> ments on the main TM website as recent as only
> a month ago (before they were "cleaned up")
> said that the requirements for learning the TM
> siddhis were having learned basic TM and all
> four of the TM "advanced techniques."
>
> The cost of these courses would be to you personally,
> and NOT covered by the David Lynch Foundation.
> At the current adult prices, each of the advanced
> techniques costs $1500 and the last cost of the TM
> siddhi course I saw published was $3000. Therefore,
> to learn the TM siddhis would cost you $9,000.
>
> I once taught TM and know that it really IS a
> simple beginner's method of meditation, and has
> few negative side effects for the vast majority of
> its practitioners. I believe that it also can have
> many benefits.
>
> However, in the time since my involvement with
> the TM organization I have discovered many other
> techniques of meditation that I personally feel are
> just as effective as TM, just as easily learned and
> practiced, and that provide just as many benefits
> with none of the occasional negative side effects.
> Most of these other techniques are taught for free.
> The ones that are not are commonly available for
> less than $60. The David Lynch Foundation will
> be paying $600 to the TM organization for you
> to learn.
>
> You're a bright kid. Now you've got all the facts,
> both the ones I've given you here and the ones that
> were given to you by the DLF teachers. Make your
> own decision based on those facts. Good luck with
> that decision, and with your life.
>
