-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > > 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.}
I object. > Got a little K is Structured in C vibe. Not from me, you didn't. > 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. That MMY's teaching can be understood in either a religious or a nonreligious way? > The questions are not black and white and not simple Right. > 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. Barry's claiming that Bevan's letter promotes the religious choice. But the *only* religious element in it is the use of "Will of God" as an alternative to "Laws of Nature." That silly claim of Barry's is what I was addressing in this post. > 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. TM is presented in a way that encourages people to think of it as nonreligious. It tends to promote the nonreligious choice. It almost sounds as though you're advocating that people be encouraged to make the religious choice. That seems odd. If TM is a tool that will be helpful to people and can be viewed either way, why would you want to present it in the way that will make them less likely to take advantage of it? And anyway, as you know, I maintain that it simply isn't possible to give people enough information for them to make "their own best choice," exactly because, as you've just acknowledged, it's such a complicated issue. Look at how much time we've spent hashing it over on FFL, and before that on alt.m.t. > > 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. "Not an option"? That makes no sense, Curtis. Why couldn't it be the case that he taught in spiritual terms at first because he thought that would have greater appeal? > > 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. Exactly, which is why Bevan provided both options. But according to Barry, he provided only one. > 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. Big "if." And in the opinion of Christian triumphalists at that, who view Hinduism as competition. Is that the kind of view you want to encourage people to hold? > > 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. No, that isn't what it "reveals" at all. That's what you *infer*, but it's not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting--saying straight out, in fact--that Barry's imagination is limited. > 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. According to an earlier post in this discussion, you were totally gung-ho TM-as-religion when you were a TM teacher. > 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. My imagination sees *all* religions as metaphorical systems describing the nature and mechanics of consciousness. In that context, gods and goddesses are metaphors for elements of one's own consciousness. It's not that pujas aren't "religious," it's that *religions* aren't religious, ultimately. That MMY could teach either in religious terms or in terms of the nature and mechanics of consciousness, with the two approaches corresponding perfectly in all their principles, tells me that this must have been how *he* saw it as well. In fact, that's where I got the idea in the first place. For many people, including MMY (and you when you were a teacher), religious ritual and worship and expression of devotion are fulfilling and uplifting. But there's no need to *abstain* from those practices because you see their context as a metaphor for something much more abstract. That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. I would guess that worship "enlivens" the abstractions, which can be pretty dry. Or maybe such bliss pervades one's life when one has achieved a higher state of consciousness that the only way to express it is through the poetry of worship. I don't know; I'm not religiously inclined, nor am I in a constant state of bliss, so I'm more drawn to the dry intellectual approach. But I can *imagine* how someone might derive great benefit from worship and ritual even with the understanding that it's all metaphorical. <snip> > 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. Sure they do. They just rather sloppily allow them to run together and contradict each other. E.g.: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." This is a God who is so personal he (!) speaks directly to Isaiah--telling Isaiah that he, God, is so IMpersonal that humans can't hope to understand him. (The verses are from the Hebrew Scriptures, of course, but they're invoked *very* frequently in Christianity.) <snip> > 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. Not just Hindu by any means, and not even exclusively religious. We come up against the inconsistency I mentioned of how it would be possible for anybody to think and act *other than* via the administration of Natural Law. Perhaps what the quote is saying is that only those established in self-referral consciousness *experience* Natural Law to be carrying out their thoughts and actions. But Christianity is muddled with regard to free will as well. For example, from Acts: "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." Calvin, of course, was an implacable determinist. The free will-determinism controversy is one of the very thorniest in theology and philosophy, and we aren't going to settle it here. But by the same token, because it's such a confused issue, you can't really say the quote you cite is an absolute contradiction of any theology. > 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. Yes, I'd like it to lose a little weight, not dismantle it. It's too confusing to say a teaching is religious if you don't mean it's the teaching of *a religion*. There isn't a good alternate term; "spiritual" could apply to a belief system that doesn't include belief in God. Maybe "theistic" would be better in this case. But Barry's trying to trade on the confusion, and I'm not letting him do that. <snip> > 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. Well, maybe you will and maybe you won't. Maybe you'll be influenced *negatively* by the popular conceptions. > > 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. OK, so he doesn't catch you in his net. But the idea of an orderly universe is not exclusively a religious one by any means. > He makes many assumptive statements which are shorthand > versions of belief packets, that if unpacked, are > contradictory to many people's philosophies or > religions. Well, we'd have to look at 'em one by one. <snip> > > 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. That's a genuine issue, Curtis. It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss it. <snip various irrelevancies as to the merit of Bevan's specific claims; that's not what I was arguing at all> <snip> > > 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. Well, he doesn't use the term "perfect," I suspect for that very reason, and I doubt many people would understand what he's saying to refer to behavioral perfection a la Jesus. > > (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 don't think a reductio ad very absurdum serves your purpose here. > > 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. "Thy will be done" is a 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. As we know, "Take it as it comes" is an overall principle in the TM context, not just one applied during meditation. But I rather doubt even the strictest Christians are constantly monitoring their thoughts lest their minds be taken over by spirits. And that isn't how it's used in the TM meditation context in any case. So you're really stretching it here.
