--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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.
Well, on the basis of the paragraph from your earlier post I quoted at the top. > 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. Yes, I know. But that's *my* point too; they're taking it not because they want to hold the flower but because you want them to. They haven't assented to anything except the desire to be polite to *you*. > > > 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. OK, it sounded contradictory to me. I personally didn't find the puja that odd or impressive. <snip> > > 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, Oh, for goodness' sake. It isn't "parental" to not want to impose something on somebody. <snip> > > 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. OK. I think that's absurd in this context.
