--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > From the "Letter to Education Ministries" by > > Bevan Morris, May 9th 2003, still found at: > > http://www.mgcwp.org/parliamentofworldpeace/letter_Education.htm > > > > (Excerpts only, because Bevan is nothing if not pompous > > and long-winded, emphasis mine.)
I'm gunna start with the question of why we should trust that this organization has got the solution to all of life's biggest problems when they can't even seem to master the cell padding functions when they built their tables in their Web page. It looks like something from the first exercise in "Build Your Own Website, Yes You Can, elementary school edition!" (For non Web geeks, when was the last time you saw text that was shoved that close to the border between the white and "try'n to be Gold" yellow, colored border of the page.) > > > > Note the somewhat different language than that being > > used in the current attempt to sell TM in schools. > > Note the *equivalence* that is being drawn between > > two flowery Maharishi euphemisms below and what > > they really mean both to Bevan and to Maharishi. > > One of the biggest problems the TM critics here have > is a seriously limited imagination, by which I mean > an inability to think outside the box of their own > preconceptions. (At the same time, what imagination > they do have tends to be hyperactive within the > context of those preconceptions.) I'm gunna translate this as "If you don's see it my way, you are stupid." (Feel free to object.} Got a little K is Structured in C vibe. Personally I don't think either side of this question is lacking in imagination. Especially since some of the most active critics here taught the perspective you are advocating for years. The questions are not black and white and not simple, so we both have a lot of room for personal choice in how to view it. What I am advocating is that the public be given the respect of giving them enough information so they can make their own choice. If they want to use the version of imagination you are proposing and see the puja as non religious, let 'em. But let's not withhold the information they need to make their own best choice. > > The above from Barry's post is an example. He notes > the equivalence drawn between "Laws of Nature" and > "Will of God" and concludes that this means the > latter is what is "really" meant and that the former > is just a "euphemism." This is an interesting point. Let's see where it leads. > > It never occurs to him to consider whether it might > be the *latter* that's a euphemism for the *former*, The reason this is not likely is that Maharishi first taught TM using more explicitly spiritual terms. So by the timeline this is not an option. > or whether both terms really *are* equivalent, > referring to the same abstract dynamic using the > terms of different perspectives, one religious and > one not. This is one of the options for people to CHOOSE. It requires a certain amount of detachment from most religions as the Cistertian meditating monks found out for themselves. In their opinion is ends up in Hindu triumphalism if you get into the teaching far enough. (The choice to view this as "Vedic" duly noted.) > > In Barry's limited imagination, there's only *one* > way to read "the Laws of Nature--the Will of God," > and that is as "the Will of God." I believe you are suggesting that your way is also an "only way" Judy. Your comment about people not seeing it that way as lacking in imagination reveals that you view your POV as the RIGHT right way. But it disregards the fact that I have seen it your way for years and now on further reflection (and fantastic development in my powers of imagination) I see it differently. I now choose to believe that Maharishi was pushing his religious agenda by playing a shell game with terms. I offer as proof of that the religious use of pujas to Hindu Gods and Goddesses in TM facilities. You need more than just an active imagination to not see them as specifically religious since these ceremonies are historically post Vedic. > > > Then, please explain to me why TM, thus presented, > > is not essentially a religious teaching. > > Given the conclusion I just outlined, we find the > further limitation of the inability to conceive of > any reference to "God" as being independent of the > teaching of a particular religion: The Science of Being spells out the Hindu version of this God. It is not ecumenical. Christians do not view God as having an personal and impersonal aspect. So the only way you can make this case if for people who haven't gotten far enough to discover that this is not true in the TM teaching. The following quote is not compatible with Christianity: Yatinam Brahma Bhavati Sarathih "For those established in self-referral consciousness, the totality of Natural Law (the administrator of the universe) spontaneously carries out their thoughts and actions." It is almost Christian theology's direct opposite, due to the theological need for the Christian to choose with free will, his relationship with Christ as savior. This choice is never removed no matter how sanctified the person and this point is often driven home in the lives of the saints. This is a Hindu conception of enlightenment. (I am not an advocate of the faux cannibalistic rituals of Christianity, I am just pointing out that the claim of ecumenicalism has not been achieved.) Any teaching > that mentions "God" must be the teaching of *a > religion*, as if it were impossible for anyone to > believe in the existence of something they call > "God" without being a practitioner of a particular > religion. You are dismantling the usefulness of "religion as a term. Granted it is a fat term with lots of nuance and shading. You can have people practicing a version of Buddhism who do not believe in God. Perhaps the Vedantists are also in this category. But if there is a belief in a version of God we can safely identify this as a religious notion if we want to preserve any integrity to the term. And as you note, you may not be associated with a particular named religion. But you will be influenced by the cultural conceptions of him popular in your time. These days the Newage (Spelling is a nod To Penn and Teller and is not a typo) movement has combined spiritual conceptions from different religions, but the sources for most of the major concepts are locatable if you can get a New Age believer to define the terms at all. > > I'm no fan of Bevan, but it seems to me what he's > trying to do in the quoted material is to address > people who hold a wide range of beliefs and world- > views, from atheists to the devout practitioners of > a specific religion, in terms that will resonate > with all of them. His view is based on an assumption of a teleological universe that is not shared by this atheist. He makes many assumptive statements which are shorthand versions of belief packets, that if unpacked, are contradictory to many people's philosophies or religions. > > I don't think it's a very successful attempt, Agreed. > because most people who would resonate to the term > "Laws of Nature" as referring to the "controlling > authority" of life on earth (i.e., those who are not > religious) don't think of those laws as encompassing > the everyday details of human behavior. They > understand "Laws" to mean the known physical laws-- > of gravity, of thermodynamics, etc. > > Plus which, there has always been a logical > inconsistency in MMY's teaching about the Laws of > Nature (or the Will of God) as the "controlling > authority" with regard to human behavior. If it's > possible to "make mistakes," defined as acting > contrary to the Laws of Nature (or the Will of God), > then those laws or that will cannot be said to be > the "controlling authority." Excellent point. > > But at this point we begin to get into very > complicated philosophical issues, which obviously > Bevan can't begin to address in this piece of > promotional material (and which aren't within > Barry's intellectual understanding anyway). Again we come back to respect for people's abilities to choose with whatever amount of time you have to explain yourself. The overwhelming effect as I read it was of a pile of grandiose claims of panacea cures for the world's problems, which for most educated people sounds stupid or at best naive. > > Furthermore, > > please explain to me why it is not a *fundamentalist* > > religious teaching, given the highlighted first phrase > > below, which implies that the writer believes that it > > is the *only* way to "live in accord with the will of > > God." > > As noted, it's not at all clear, except to those of > limited imagination, that what Bevan describes *is* > a religious teaching. It could be understood either > way. Again we come back to the man Maharishi. He already taught TM one way and then changed it to avoid some conflicts with people who were not Hindu. He was not as clever as he thought. > > As to whether it's "fundamentalist" in the more > generic sense--specifically, whether Bevan is saying > practice of TM is the only way a person can live in > accord with the "Laws of Nature" or the "Will of God" > --that isn't clear either. I think we know the answer to that one. If TM is the FASTEST path, and everyone in the movement is not living in a glorious state of enlightenment by now, we are talking more than one lifetime needed WITH TM. > > What Bevan is saying that *is* fundamentalist is that > TM is the only *practice for students* that can produce > the experience of Transcendental Consciousness to the > degree that "total brain functioning" is awakened. This claim is too far beyond silly. Don't you object to it yourself Judy? Are you functioning even close to your awakened "total brain functioning?" As an insider, aren't you a little offended by this blatant bullshit? > > Left unclear is whether (a) other practices not > suitable for students might awaken "total brain > function," and (b) whether "total brain function" might > awaken spontaneously (i.e., without a specific practice) > in some people (including students). Given that neither > Bevan or MMY would be likely to maintain that nobody > who didn't practice TM as a student has ever awakened > "total brain function," it makes sense to assume those > possibilities aren't being ruled out. > > Another assumption that could be classed as > "fundamentalist" is that awakening "total brain function" > ensures life in accord with the Laws of Nature or the > Will of God. > > Boiled down, what Bevan is saying is that if you want > students not to "make mistakes and create problems for > themselves and their government," the only way to > *ensure* this is to have them practice TM. This claim is so anti-intellectual as to make my brain hurt. (The claim by Bevan, not Judy.) > > That may well be a "fundamentalist" belief, in the > sense I outined above, but it isn't *in and of itself* > a religious belief. It *can* be a belief compatible > with one's religion if one is a religionist, but it > doesn't have to be if one is not. It is another direct contradiction to many versions of Christianity. Seeking such a state would be considered the height of hubris and pride for a human. It is right from the Hindu playbook. > > (That's one of my assumptions, BTW: If a teaching or > principle can be understood both in a religious and a > nonreligious sense, then it isn't *per se* a > religious teaching or principle, regardless of > whether the person stating the teaching or principle > is him/herself religious.) This is not the way the term is used in society. I can go to mass, eat bread and drink wine and think of it as a hangover cure, but I was participating in a religious rite no matter how I view it. > > > I'll wait... > > There, Barry, you didn't have to wait very long, now, > did you? > > P.S.: I believe it was during my three days' checking that > whoever was teaching, in discussing the instruction "Take > it as it comes," remarked that MMY had said, "Or, if > you're a religious person, you can think of it as 'Thy > will be done.'" Yes > > That equivalence, and the fact that MMY considered it > optional which way to think of it, turned on a little > light in my mind that eventually grew into a much > broader understanding of the nature of religious belief. That is because it is part of his teaching to introduce more and more overt examples of Hindu belief. Even his misuse of this quote shows how out of touch he is with how Christian view this term. The way Maharishi is using it is closer to the fundamentalist notion of allowing your mind to be taken over by spirits. Christian's use of "Thy will be done" has to do with conscious acceptance of his will, not giving in to an aspect of the natural mind which some view as extremely dangerous. This tread is one of the most enjoyable we have had lately. > > > *There is only one way* that has been found to develop > > the holistic functioning of the brain of every studentto > > provide them the experience of the most silent, peaceful > > level of their own consciousnessTranscendental > > Consciousness. > > > > This experience alone has been found by scientific research > > to awaken total brain functioning, leading to measurable > > improvements in creativity, intelligence, academic performance, > > health, and to the experience of higher states of consciousness > > where students are naturally peaceful and harmonious, and > > live in accord with *the Laws of Naturethe Will of > > God*so they don't make mistakes and create problems for > > themselves and their government. > > > > . . . > > > > Professor Tony Nader, M.D., Ph.D. (who received his weight > > in gold in 1998 for his extraordinary scientific discoveries, > > and who has now been honored as His Majesty Raja Raam, > > first ruler of the Global Country of World Peace) has > > studied the relationship between the 40 aspects of Veda and > > Vedic Literaturethe basic impulses of Nature's intelligence > > vibrating in the Unified Field of Natural Law, the unbounded > > ocean of consciousnessand the structures and functions of the > > human physiology. > > > > He discovered that *the total intelligence of Naturethe > > Will of God*which manages 100 billion galaxies, is > > also fully expressed in our DNA, in each of the trillions > > of cells of the body, and in the human physiology as a whole. >
