--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > With the puja you had the added weirdness of people > > > > not knowing what the F you were doing. We down play > > > > the weirdness so much in the intro and prep with our > > > > suits and ties and talk of science, and then then we > > > > hit them with the sandalwood incense infused puja > > > > room and we show up like the little devoted outcaste > > > > Hindu-wannabees we were. All of a sudden Mr. > > > > Scientific Charts transforms by doing a detailed > > > > ritual that goes on pretty long, right from the middle > > > > ages! What a trip! > > > > > > So lessee, Curtis, were you trying to deceive them > > > into thinking the puja wasn't anything special, > > > > I was commenting on the contrast between who we are > > in the intro and prep and how immerse the puja > > experience is. There is no trying, involved, we where > > loud speakers who had been trained to parrot phrases. > > You are confusing my perspective now, for how it went > > down then. > > No, you're missing my point. > > > just > > > everyday, casual stuff--I'm just giving you the flower > > > 'cause I thought you'd enjoy holding it; I'm returning > > > a piece of fruit to you 'cause I figured you might be > > > hungry? > > > > I sense you are trying to be sarcastic but I can't figure > > out why. > > I'm pointing out that you've described how the puja > was done in two different ways, citing two different > and opposing intentions. Earlier you said your script > called for you to make it seem that the student wasn't > participating in a religious ritual (my paraphrases > above); but in the post I'm responding to, you seem > to be suggesting that the setup was designed to impress > them with the puja's holiness and your devotion. (I'm > not even talking about the prep lecture here, just the > puja.)
That wasn't mu point in describing the puja at all. I was not saying we were trying to impress them with the puja's holiness, I don't know why you would say that. I was describing how it went down. The truth is they met one guy at the intro and prep and then we lay the puja on them which is a study in contrasts. We weren't trying to do anything in the puju, we were doing it by detailed scripting that gets them to participate with little resistance or explanation. In describing how we have them take the flower I was just showing how we get them to participate without argument. "You'd LIKE to have a flower" is a long way from "Would you like to have a flower?" That was my point. > > > I am describing what it feels like to do a puja > > for a stranger when we teach TM. Remember we are > > speaking memorized lines from the moment we begin > > with the flower routine. > > Yes, that's what I'm talking about. The casualness of > the flower and prasad bits doesn't match up with how > you're describing what it felt like to you. I don't get your point. You are tying to match things up to create some kind of contradiction, but it isn't working. As I said, we were not trying to make the puja seem odd and very religious, it just is. > > This is reiterating a point I made in my last post > to you (haven't seen any response), in which I said > it seemed to me the whole routine was designed (i.e., > by Maharishi) to *prevent* the student from being > drawn into the puja's religious atmosphere and the > teacher's feelings of devotion, to *protect* the > student from such involvement, to respect the > student's boundaries, in other words. Yes there is some downplaying of the religious elements in the conscious mind of the student while maintaining the strict religious protocol. I'm not sure how much boundary protecting is involved or not. The only boundaries you seem to be pointing out are keeping them from understanding what is going on. I'm not inclined to see that as a virtue. Especially since TM could be taught with a bit more upfront transparency and a lot less bullshittery IMO. > > I'm just seeing the whole motivation so differently > from you--not as setting a trap for the student to > fall unsuspectingly into the clutches of Hinduism, > but to *keep the student from doing any such thing*, > to minimize any possible conflict with the student's > religious beliefs while ensuring they have the best > possible start with the technique. That sounds like a possible POV. It is one I taught with. But the parental role of minimizing any possibility of TM conflicting with their religious role is a bit too parental, and a bit too slippery considering the fact that we are taking their money for something which is not being represented completely accurately IMO. It would make very little difference in who started to not run the song and dance of "minimizing conflict." And if they were really religious enough in some other religion the truth is that they probably would have a problem knowing the true level of their participation. But most people wouldn't care and might see it as more of the antiquated religious charm of the thing. > > Then, yes, on the third day of checking they get the > "Vision of Possibilities," but by that time *they've > got the technique down pat* so that if they don't > find the "possibilities" appealing, they'll still > have the technique. > > <snip> > > I don't have any sense for how Barry thought of the > > puja when he was in the movement. Maybe he thought > > of them as mythical figures and felt it was all > > symbolic in a Joseph Campbel way. > > Well, that's how I think of it. Barry didn't say how > he thought of it, only that he didn't feel religious > about it. > > > But I personally never met a teacher that didn't view > > the 3/4 Vishnu Veda Vyasa as a real being on earth and > > I know that this is how Maharishis viewed him, as an > > historical character. > > I don't know what "3/4 Vishnu Veda Vyasa" is. It is the reason he is blue in the painting. He was a partial avatar or Vishnu. > > > So if you are trying to get me to help you find > > contradictions in anything Barry wrote you are on > > your own. > > Yes, if I have questions for Barry, I'll pose them > to him. > > > But I think you are saying that if Barry was able to > > view the puja in a non religious way, then it isn't > > really religious. Is that what you are claiming? > > I'll just repeat what I said: Doesn't Barry's account > support my point that it's only what the *individual* > thinks about what they're doing that's relevant? No. People can think that A is NOT A. They would be wrong. >
