--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "guyfawkes91" <guyfawke...@...> wrote: > > > > It's said in Ayurveda that the thing that gives you that > > > "sparkle" is your "tejas". If your tejas is diminished > > > you look flat, lackluster. Check out someone who just > > > took a psychedelic and you'll see this same flatness, > > > this lack of "shine". Psychedelic depletes tejas. Deep, > > > authentic meditation gives you tejas. This is why so many > > > saints have this shimmer about them that everyone notices. > > > > > > So what does it tell you when a long-term meditator is gray > > > or flat-looking (check out the visage of ole Doc Travis in > > > Alex's video for a great example). Instead of being > > > replenished transcendentally of tejas, they're languishing > > > in a tamasic swoon. > > There's a curious amalgam of things happening here. One is > that most of the zippy people have gone. Anyone in the TMO > who had some get up and go has got up and gone.
Exactly. > The dreary types are much more tractable and the TMO requires > people to be compliant and to do as they're told, so they're > the ones left behind. > > Then in addition there's the tendency for any closed group to > drift to extremes. In the various closed TM communities around > the world the idea has developed that in order to be serious > about getting enlightened you have to be dreary. So people in > these communities are developing a kind of flat monotone way > of speaking, when you talk to some of them it's like they're > depressed, or on medication, or in early stage psychosis. It's > really weird, they are quite put out by someone who displays > any energy or liveliness. If you laugh or tell jokes or do > anything that displays vitality they think you're being "not > coherent". Exactly again. This discussion resonates with me because that is how the TM movement felt to me back in 1978, when I walked away from it. This movement towards lifelessness and away from liveliness was, in fact, one of the main reasons *for* my walking away. Consider the word "celebration" as used by the TM movement, and what it represents. Dull, lifeless people doing dull, lifeless things, *none* of them fitting most people's idea of "celebration," and certainly not representing anything that most people would consider fun. Now ( *not* to toot my own horn or be "important" in any way, merely to provide a contrast for those who may have never experienced such a contrast ), try to imagine what it was like for me to run into Rama - Frederick Lenz. The man was *outrageous*. In all honesty I con- sider him second only to Robin Williams in terms of the quickness of his mind and the spontaneity of his humor. He could have had a career in stand- up comedy if he hadn't gone into the guru biz. As mentioned yesterday, when we had "celebrations" they were CELEBRATIONS. We partied down. We had "gong shows." We went to the movies together. We went to *Disneyland* ferchrissakes. We went to Hawaii and the Grand Canyon and Paris and Amsterdam. When we were in New York we had dinner meetings with everyone in tuxes and evening gowns at the Pierre or at Windows On The World. When we had public lectures we rented Carnegie Hall. We had "disco nights" at which our "house band" Zazen played and we all danced. In other words, it was FUN. Fun was, in fact, an integral part of the Way. It was Rama's contention, and remains mine, that if you are heavily involved with a spiritual path and you are *not* having fun, then there is something wrong. It may not be the path for you. His contention was that FUN is the body's way of telling you that you are *open* to higher spiritual energies and that they are flowing through you, whereas a *lack* of fun is your body's way of telling you the opposite. I still agree with this 100%. Yes, the Rama trip was a cult, too, in its way. And yes, over time, some of the fun turned sour and I wound up walking away from that spiritual trip, too. But for most of the time I was involved with it, the organization *was* fun, and the students were obviously *having* fun. And that fun and energy were apparent to others; it was commented on by many people in other spiritual trips. > The other strange thing is that the extremists, who display > that kind of monotone speech most clearly, are often the > ones chosen to be the public face of the TMO. The lively > people are kept in the background because they aren't > thought to be coherent enough. So if a psychiatrist were > to listen to the intonation (not what they say, but how > they say it) of a public lineup of TMO spokespeople he'd > conclude that they're in serious need of help And he might be correct IMO. > Bizarre! Very. This discussion has been a valuable one IMO because it has touched on what the *real* reason is for the lack of interest in TM. It's not "the times." It's not Kali Yuga. It's not "not having enough pundits yet." IT'S THE TM'ers, STUPID! Just LOOK at the people that the TMO "trots out" to represent "200% of life." Anyone looking at them is going to see closer to "10%," if that. Most are going to react as Stephen Fry did, and with reason. Let's face it -- most of us started TM because we ran into a TM teacher who had some phwam!, some energy. Whether it was Jerry Jarvis or Paul Horn or one of the TM "golden boys" or just your run-of-the-mill initiator still excited about TM and *showing* that excitement, that is what people in the audiences at intro lectures saw. And they WANTED SOME OF IT. Who would actually WANT any of what is radiated by the representatives of the TM movement today? I mean, let's face it...the best they can come up with is David Fucking Lynch. That's sad.
