--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavisma...@...> wrote: > > GrateSwan, I think you're slicing the baloney too thin,
There are interesting if not important distinctions to be explored and understood, IMO. Let me try to recast them, the distinction between: 1) learning and practicing. 2) religion-based and the practice of religion. With just these two distinctions we have a 2 x 2 table with the following combinations: 1) learning a religion 2) learning something religious-based 3) practicing a religion 4) practicing something religious-based Add to this to voluntary vs required Required 1) learning a religion 2) learning something religious-based 3) practicing a religion 4) practicing something religious-based Voluntarily 5) learning a religion 6) learning something religious-based 7) practicing a religion 8) practicing something religious-based The Lynch program as I understand it, is only about option 8. Though much of the discussion seems to be blurring it all, with many of the other non-Lynch elements being bantered about as objections to his program. Lets take Lynch and TM out of it. Lets say its #8 for a buddhist-based awareness meditation. A) Should that be prohibited from publicly high schools? B) Should that be prohibited from publicly universities? On the latter, universities, should any courses on hindism or buddhist courses be banned? What if the course involves a field trip to see some temples. Or a yagya? Personally, I don't see # 8 in HS for buddist awareness meditation as a religions practice that should be banned from public HSs. An if it is, then I would expect a whole scale change and reduction of public university courses that have religious content. And certainly those that observe religions practices. In my view, if you are objecting to #8 at public universities you are cutting the first amendment way too thin. HS? Still pretty thing -- so thin its transparent -- hold it up to a window and you can see light. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." though I appreciate the intent to be rigorously objective. But it's not a Zeno's paradox thing; it's so clearly religious and in every aspect, *except* for the TMOs labored explanation/interpretation that has to be immediately inserted, which essentially boils down to "it just *looks* religious, but it's really not (it's a science actually)." > > That argument flys in the face of a "totality of the circumstances" analysis. > If the saying of the Catholic rosary had provable, scientifically > veriafiable effects on student's attitudes and grades, would that justify > teaching it or having the students practice it at school? > > No, not under the federal Constitution. > > This is exactly the same thing. > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > > > Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing so hard -- > > > thanks for that. > > > > > > Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea that it's just a > > > posture, merely equivalent with any other, and that a person would assume > > > that pose immediately following a religious(-type) ceremony (and on cue > > > from the instructor), and not draw the immediate conclusion that the > > > whole thing is religion-based is absurd. > > > > I have a questioning (same say questionable) mind. I am not defending any > > position, rather just questioning the logic and implications of your > > statement. > > > > What is the import of "religiously based"? Most things we come across, do, > > are involved in have a religious basis. Imagine the founding fathers saying > > a prayer before signing the DoI or Constitution? Does that make all our > > laws religious based? Ergo, are you practicing a religion when you practice > > law? > > > > US currency says "in God We Trust". One could say that US money is > > religion-based. When I buy stuff, is that a religious practice (granted > > some things I buy are divine and make me feel like I am in heaven, but I > > digress). > > > > Wine .. well you heard my rap on that. > > > > Kneeling -- are hookers practicing religion? > > > > If research showed that kneeling created a mind-body response that makes > > one more able to learn some things, would kneeling in TM instruction be ok > > then? > > > > If TM is religiously based, should that preclude the practice of it (not > > explicitly teaching of it ) on a voluntary basis in schools a religion? If > > so, is that only for state-funded high schools and not state-funded > > universities? > > > > Are non-catholic participants students of catholic schools practicing > > catholicism? Do many of such students converto to catholicism? > > > > I am not arguing your point, and not defending TM. But these are the types > > of questions I would ponder if I were an appelate judge deciding the matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the gestalt of your phrasing was just great, thanks again. > > > > > > Marek > > > > > > ** > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This page contains an embedded video of Maharishi > > > > > > leading a group performance of the TM puja, sur- > > > > > > rounded by the Rajas in full costume. > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Whatever your stance about the "TM is/isn't a > > > > > > religion" issue, ask yourself, "If the TMO was > > > > > > proud enough of this occasion to broadcast it on > > > > > > its 'Maharishi Channel,' why don't they place this > > > > > > or similar videos on the tm.org website, so that > > > > > > all of the million kids they hope to teach TM to > > > > > > can see a preview of the ceremony they will soon > > > > > > be participating in?" > > > > > > > > > > Possibly because they know what people like you > > > > > would try to make of it? > > > > > > > > People like anybody. How many do you reckon would go > > > > ahead with learning, sorry "initiation", if they saw > > > > this vid first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ponder recent claims that "kneeling is kneeling" > > > > > > and that it's not really a "bowing down" to what > > > > > > these practitioners of the TM puja do at 09:35 into > > > > > > the video. The person who created the puja and in > > > > > > this video defines it as a ceremony "TO Guru Dev," > > > > > > and the costumed leaders of the TM movement that > > > > > > surround him seem to have a slightly different > > > > > > interpretation of what 'namah' means and how to > > > > > > demonstrate it than the person who said "kneeling > > > > > > is kneeling." Looks a lot like "bowing down" to me. > > > > > > > > > > But that's exactly the point. Kneeling is kneeling; > > > > > it depends on the person doing the kneeling what it > > > > > means to that person. > > > > > > > > This sounds really desperate. Put it in it's obvious > > > > context, what else could kneeling before a holy man mean? > > > > My shoe laces need tying up? Or maybe feeling a bit tired > > > > and in need of a kneel? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should it be the case that if a raja thinks > > > > > kneeling means bowing down to Guru Dev, therefore > > > > > that must be what the student about to learn TM > > > > > thinks? Is it some kind of magic telepathy that > > > > > transfers this idea from the mind of the raja into > > > > > the mind of the student, without the student even > > > > > being aware of what has been put in his/her mind? > > > > > And therefore kneeling is "bowing down" to the > > > > > student even though the student doesn't think it is? > > > > > > > > > > Boy, that's some heavy siddhi these rajas have! > > > > > > > > > > > Check out the paintings on the walls and the way > > > > > > that the room is decorated. > > > > > > > > > > Will similar paintings and decorations bedeck the > > > > > room in which the students learn TM? > > > > > > > > > > > Check out the scene at 00:35 into the video and > > > > > > the guy seated on a raised dias, higher than Maha- > > > > > > rishi, and how he is dressed and the offerings and > > > > > > adornments laid out at his feet. Dat's Da King, > > > > > > the current leader of the TM movement. Nothing > > > > > > religious about him and how *he* is presented and > > > > > > treated and his relationship to other people, > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > Will he be present, complete with offerings and > > > > > adornments, in the room in which the students learn > > > > > TM? > > > > > > > > > > Again, is it some kind of magical telepathy that > > > > > invisibly recreates the room in the video, along > > > > > with King Tony, in the room where the students > > > > > learn TM? > > > > > > > > I guess the whole point here is that they try to hide > > > > all this until you are in the TMO enough to subscribe > > > > to the Marshy channel or curious enough to go looking > > > > it up on the net. > > > > > > > > Here's a funny (and of course true) story: > > > > > > > > A couple of new meditators were one of the last weekend > > > > courses held at an academy in England before the scorpion- > > > > land amusement. They had dinner and a pleasant chat with > > > > the other CPs and then went to the meeting room where > > > > they were told what the programme was etc. The teacher > > > > then put on a vid of King Tony, after a few minutes they > > > > looked at each other, got up, walked out, packed their > > > > bags and left. > > > > > > > > I'd say we do a poll of how many would've learnt TM > > > > if they knew it was going to be like this but I think > > > > some of us might have lost thier objectivity. > > > > > > > > > >
