I tend to agree with you Shemp and would be interested
in reading the arch of your involvement in the TMO. I
believe you have mentioned your TTC several times.
Did you then teach full-time? Did you take the Sidhis
course? One of the early ones? If so, did you practice
them for a long period of time and what led to your
ending that practice? What, if anything, led to your
leaving "The Movement?"
I'm not interested in hacking on you and don't wish
to come across as a stalker. I just find it interesting
to hear peoples stories about those things.
It seems that Barry was tending toward an exit and
that his decision was perhaps was assisted by his
experiences with an early Sidhis course. I never attended
TTC and it seems the design of the early Sidhi
courses was a typical "movement" throw it at the
wall and see what sticks.
My own Sidhis CIC course was one of the later '80s
ones in which the instruction had been clearly
codified and streamlined. I had observed, anecdotally,
very uneven results and experiences with earlier
courses among people I knew. I had very clear experiences
and never felt short changed by the instruction. I
discontinued my TMSP, but continued TM, when I was
not enjoying the effect on my day to day life. The
increasingly "refined perception" was annoying at
best.
I never felt compelled to share with the TMO my
exposure to other paths I encountered over the years.
So many were readily available in the USA in the 70's
and 80's. Sufi meditation with Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan,
kundalini and White Tantra with Yogi Bhajan, various
practices at Naropa when Chögyam Trungpa was still
kickin' and drinkin', and Zen. A few others that I haven't
dusted off in what seems like decades. Never had the
pleasure of encountering Mr. Lenz as I always got a
very bad vibe there.
No one ever told me, and I didn't ask, but I alway thought
that the half dozen TM advanced techniques I received over
the years might not have been available to me had I been
advertising involvement in various things. Never really felt
like being a joiner and being a "devotee" ain't my thang.
I figure I did my time as an altar boy in the '60s and
enjoyed looking around. I consider myself defrocked. :-)
TM experiences were good and definitely seemed
enhanced by the advanced techniques, with the exception
of the last. They got more expensive as the years went
on but that was never a great burden. My last two were after
my CIC course.
When I took instruction in Mindfullness meditation in '07
I arbitrarily decided to discontinue my TM. The seeds of
the old brainwashing still have some life I guess. A few
months ago, about a year after Mindfullness instruction,
I began TM again. Practicing them both is neither a strain
nor a conflict and I realize now that a hiatus of one to learn
the other was completely unnecessary. I can't quite put my
finger on it, but there is something very complimentary about
TM and mindfullness/vipassana practice. As I continue my
practice I expect that my feelings about that will clarify itself.
I am glad I have both.
Given the behavior and trajectory of the TMO for quite a
few years I have found it impossible to recommend it as
a place to go for meditation instruction. I do, however,
heartily recommend what groups like InsightLa, the Insight
Meditation Society, and Jon Kabat-Zinn's MBSR are doing.
I saw enough weirdness with Chögyam Trungpa and others
in his organization in the 70's to find it hard to take the
Shambala folks seriously. I say that in spite of the fact that
they are held in high regard by some folks who I hold in
high regard. Go figure. I chalk it up to a cultural thang akin
to my not being convinced that being whacked by a
keisaku/kyosaku is compassionate. Maybe I had severe Inos,
but that makes me wanna gassho myowndamnself outta
there.
I tell yas these rambling tales Shemp just to show you
I am interested in hearing your TMSP experiences and what
led you to distance yourself from the Movement. Hearing
it from someone still satisfied with their is always interesting.
Think cool thoughts Shemp. It makes summer in Arizona
bearable.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote:
>
> Barry is, of course, completely correct in his analysis below.
>
> As I've written here many times, the change of course that MMY took was what
> was responsible for the death of the TM Movement...AND IT CONTINUES TO THIS
> DAY.
>
> And I remember that, ironically, it was Charlie Lutes who warned MMY (I'm
> sure there must have been dozens more!) that coming out with the Sidhis and
> the flying in the way he did would destroy the movement. I think that's
> either in Paul Mason's book or Nancy Cooke de Herrera's book, ironically
> titled "Beyond Gurus", which is what TM was SUPPOSED to be about.
>
> Back in '76 before the change took place, the TMO was on track to initiating
> millions. That ALL came to a grinding halt with the sidhis and the flying.
> One wonders where we'd be today if things had been done differently...or,
> rather, by the same formula that got them the original success.
>
> My big complaint is that as one who subscribes to the ORIGINAL TM "path",
> that there is virtually no support for people like me in the TMO. And I
> suppose that's okay because it's supposed to be a "do it yourself" program.
>
> But it sure is lonely here.
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Recent talk of "needing a guru" here has reminded me
> > of a phenomenon that many TB TMers are either unaware
> > of (because they started TM so much later than others
> > here and thus missed the earlier teachings) or they
> > have blotted out the earlier teachings from their minds
> > (because they don't want to deal with the fact that
> > Maharishi completely reversed himself).
> >
> > I call this phenomenon the "Maharishi Flip-Flop." It's
> > where Maharishi started his "career" as a spiritual
> > teacher teaching one thing -- emphatically -- and then
> > LATER "flip-flopped" and began teaching or doing
> > *exactly the opposite* of what he had said/taught before.
> >
> > The most famous example of this, of course, is the siddhis.
> > In courses throughout the late 60s, Maharishi was clear
> > to the point of being emphatic that they were dangerous
> > and should *not* be pursued by spiritual seekers. The whole
> > "capture the fort" analogy was *invented* as a reply to
> > students who asked about the siddhis and how to achieve
> > them. MMY's teaching *at that time* was that it was safer
> > to "capture the fort," and allow such siddhis to blossom
> > on their own, if they did. He definitely *discouraged*
> > people from ever trying to achieve the siddhis.
> >
> > Of course, we all know how that turned out. And a number
> > of us here probably now feel that his earlier teaching
> > -- before the flip-flop -- was more correct.
> >
> > But for me, the "Maharishi Flip-Flop" teaching that has
> > had the most debilitating effect on students, and has
> > thus incurred the most negative karma, is the flip-flop
> > he made on "gurus" and whether one should rely on them
> > when it comes to advice on how to live one's life.
> >
> > I remember Maharishi clearly addressing this issue in
> > response to a question from the audience, the first time
> > I ever saw him, in 1967. The person asked him for advice
> > on how to resolve a quandary or problem in his life. In
> > effect, the questioner was asking Maharishi to make the
> > decision for him -- tell him what to do, give him the
> > "right" answer.
> >
> > Maharishi categorically refused to do so, and explained why.
> > He said, "If I tell you what to do...what decision to make
> > ...what happens the *next* time you need to make a decision?
> > You'll come running to me asking me to make it for you."
> >
> > He then went on to give a long talk on how the idea of
> > "gurus" telling their students what to do and how to live
> > was a *mistake*, because "It makes the students weaker.
> > As they become dependent on the guru or teacher to make
> > decisions for them, they lose the ability to make decisions
> > themselves." At this point, as he always did, Maharishi
> > segued into a discussion of TM, and how theoretically it
> > would enable the student to become stronger and more able
> > to make his OWN decisions, and not need anyone to make
> > them for him.
> >
> > Cut to only a few years later, and how Maharishi began to
> > treat the meditators and TM teachers who had "signed on" to
> > the TM movement. It was a complete and total flip-flop. He
> > began to dictate what they should wear and not wear, what
> > they should eat and not eat, what they should believe and
> > not believe, and who they should hang around with and not
> > hang around with. It is not unfair to say that on courses
> > *every* aspect of a TM student's life was dictated to him;
> > every minute of every day was *literally* "being told what
> > to do," by the guru. And soon this "being told what to do"
> > began to creep over into the lives of the TM teachers when
> > they were *not* on courses as well.
> >
> > And I think that most here have seen the debilitating
> > effects of coming to rely on Maharishi to tell them what
> > to do. Tens of thousands of TM teachers literally *lost
> > their ability* to think for themselves and make their own
> > decisions for many, many years. Some still have never
> > regained their ability to think for themselves and make
> > their own decisions, and to this day fall back on quoting
> > scripture or quotes from Maharishi's old talks as the
> > basis for all of their own decisions.
> >
> > I suggest that this "flip-flop" had far more of a karmic
> > effect -- and a negative karmic effect -- than the flip-
> > flop about the siddhis. As with the siddhis, Maharishi
> > was IMO more correct in his original teaching. And what
> > supports that opinion is taking that early teaching --
> > that it will eventually make the students weaker, not
> > stronger -- and applying it to what most of us have
> > actually seen happening to thousands of TM teachers.
> >
> > TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO AND MAKING THEIR
> > DECISIONS FOR THEM HAS MADE THEM WEAKER.
> > MANY ARE TO THIS DAY INCAPABLE OF MAKING
> > THEIR OWN DECISIONS, AND HAVE TO RELY ON
> > SOMEONE ELSE TO MAKE THEM FOR THEM.
> >
> > IMO Maharishi should have stuck with his original insights
> > and his original teachings, both about the siddhis and
> > about telling people what to do and making their decisions
> > for them. Imagine how different the history of the TM
> > movement might have been if he had.
> >
>
