You are dealing with an Org that thinks Storks bring babies.
If Maharishi struck to the plain old vanilla TM and never meddled with
things that he didn't know, the mov't would be on a very different footing
today.
--- On Fri, 5/29/09, shempmcgurk <shempmcg...@netscape.net> wrote:
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sometimes I think that the "Merv wave" is to blame
for TM prudishness
Date: Friday, May 29, 2009, 9:09 AM
There was a wave in between the Beatles and Merv waves. It happened around 1973
when the scientific research happened.
--- ,TurquoiseB <no_re...@.. .> wrote:
>
> Think about it. The TM movement at this point
> is dying, composed of primarily the last remnants
> of the "Beatles wave" and the "Merv wave" of
> initiations. The first group are now approaching
> 60 or past it, and the second wave are now in
> their 50s at least.
>
> But there is a significant difference between
> the two "generations" in my opinion. Many of us
> "Beatles wave" folks (the original Star Trek
> cast) found our way to TM and its dogma *after*
> having experienced the late 60s and its refresh-
> ing blast of freedom from prudery and sexual
> repression. The "Merv wave" folks (Star Trek,
> The Next Generation) appeared on the scene as
> young and impressionable as the original Star
> Trek cast, but in the days when the 60s sense
> of freedom and lack of prudery had already
> passed, and had been replaced with nouveau
> cynicism.
>
> Many of this latter wave *were* young and very
> impressionable, and bought in to the TM prudery.
> They came to believe wholeheartedly in stuff
> like "celibacy as a Good Thing," sex outside
> of marriage as a Bad Thing, lust as a *very*
> Bad Thing, and having sex with more than one
> person as *such* a Bad Thing that it was right
> up there with mass murder.
>
> I may only be speaking for myself, but I never
> bought into any of this bullshit. I am an unre-
> pentent child of the 60s, an ex-hippie who had
> time to form my own sexual and social identity
> *before* I ever got inducted into the Star Trek
> crew. As a result, even though a TMer, I got to
> enjoy the sexually-liberated but shallow 70s,
> and boink my way through them happily. I never
> for a moment bought into the "Thou shalt not
> have a girlfriend.. .that's beneath the stature
> of a knower of reality" dogma that was being
> sold at TM teacher training courses. I got more
> nookie on TM residence courses and ATR courses
> than most people on this forum have gotten in
> their entire lives.
>
> And I do not feel the *least* bit sorry about it.
> Say what you will, characterizes me as *what*
> you will, I am myself and comfortable with that.
> I've had long-term relationships and been married
> once and I've had one-night stands. *None* of
> these relationships are "better" in my mind than
> any other. And there is nothing any of you can
> say to "make" them better, or me "worse" because
> I can't see the theoretical difference that you
> see. Go peddle your TM prudery elsewhere.
>
> And I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way.
> When I run into people from my generation, I find
> that many of them somehow avoided this silly TM
> prudery and live according to their *own* rules
> of conduct and according to their own feelings
> about what is an acceptable lifestyle. So I'm
> wondering what the difference is between us Star
> Trekkers and the Next Generation.
>
> And I think that the bottom line may very well be
> that the Next Generation missed the late 60s. They
> grew up in a later, more cynical era in which the
> brief sense of freedom and hope that we all exper-
> ienced in the late 60s had faded and been replaced
> with standard American hopelessness. So they were
> better "fodder" for the prudish propaganda and
> repressive lifestyles peddled by the TM movement.
>
> That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it.
>
> But I'm humble enough to admit that it could
> be wrong. The difference between the folks in
> the original Beatles wavers and the later Merv
> wavers could simply be that we were smarter. :-)
*
