A few comments just in the interests of balance... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "TurquoiseB" <turquoiseb@...> wrote: > > Good raps, blusc0ut. I'll riff on the things it brought up > for me -- not that my musings are what you had in mind, > just that what you wrote got me to thinking about them. > And -- as always -- these are just musings, theories, me > trying in retrospect to make sense of something that > probably doesn't make any. They are NOT a declaration of > Truth or claim that this is what was going on. > > Basically, I've always wondered how much of the reclusive > side of the TMO was a product of the social mindset of the > organization, and how much was a product of the TM and TM- > sidhi techniques themselves. I think a case can be made > for either one, or both. > > The "fear of contact with the real world" thang can be > seen (at least by me) as an extension of the "Treat the > meditators like children who can't handle themselves > out in the real world" mindset established in the first > TM residence courses. Participants were actually for- > bidden to "leave the course" and go into town, or to > do work-related things, or do much of anything "real." > And make no mistake about it, this instruction was > *never* for the benefit of the participants. When I > worked at the Regional Office, I got to see the lists > of instructions for residence course leaders sent from > Seelisberg; they stated in clear terms that the reason > we were to keep people from leaving courses was to > prevent any possible embarrassment to the TMO. We were > to make sure they didn't wander into some town and, > being totally spaced-out, do something that would > reflect badly on TM and the TMO. This "treat them like > children" mindset was naturally extended to longer > courses when they began to appear, and to the reclusive > butt-bouncing communities or courses when they appeared.
I don't think "treat them like children" actually applies, not if course participants *were* vulnerable to getting into messes if they left the course while spaced out. If they were vulnerable, what would the alternative be? What would "treat them like adults" mean if doing the course program as instructed rendered them incapable of acting like adults? Regardless of whether the reason for keeping participants from leaving was to prevent them from embarrassing the TMO or to prevent them from embarrassing themselves, if either concern was real, it would seem irresponsible not to do so. > On the other hand, I can see that a lot of this "fear > of the real world" comes from TM and the TM-sidhis > itself. I have participated in meditation retreats > from other traditions in which we were meditating 12 > or more hours a day and there was no such suggestion > to "not go into town." Because there was no need for > such a suggestion; no one was ever "spaced out." The > meditation worked as meditation was *supposed* to > work, and created increased clarity and the ability > to cope in the participants. So if something came up > that required their attention in the real world, they > were not only able to handle it, they (we) tended to > do so more efficiently, and with no trace of spaced- > out-ed-ness, only increased clarity of mind. Typical reports from TMers who went on courses were that they experienced increased clarity and ability to cope after the course was over. That was one of the reasons for going on courses in the first place. Further, it might be suggested that no one got spaced out on these courses from other traditions because the meditation wasn't as powerful as that practiced on the TM courses. > On another level, I was exposed in the Rama trip to > a very different model for what spiritual attainment > meant. Everything in that org was presented in terms > of "Does it fly in the real world," or "Does it have > any value in the real world." There was never any > sense of anyone having a "day job," as opposed to > their spiritual life. Our jobs *were* our spiritual > lives, and an integral part of our sadhana. We were > taught to use them as an opportunity to focus and > excel, and taught that excellence in one's career > was FAR more an indication of "spiritual progress" > than any internal, subjective experience. On the other hand, the "Rama trip" has been perceived by some as very damaging and Lenz himself as a scam artist, collecting most of the money his followers made and having them lie on their resumes in order to be hired for high-paying jobs, among other things. Somehow that doesn't seem like an environment that would foster genuine "spiritual progress." > Compare and contrast to the TMO, in which many people > didn't even *have* careers. Many of them followed the > "monk model" and went all Purusha or Mother Divine, > begging others for money so they never even *had* to > work. Instead they got to focus on the subjective side > of their lives, which was then *never tested* by > exposing it to the real world. Many if not most Purusha and Mother Divine didn't join these programs on a permanent basis, so they *did* end up having to test their subjective progress by exposing it to the real world. > One of the reasons I bailed from the TMO in the first > place was that I had begun to notice that "good > experiences" seemed to be linked to "being on a > course." Leave the course, and these experiences > went away. This did not strike me as a balanced or > valid approach to spiritual experience; if it can't > persist in the midst of the busy marketplace, and > can only exist in some rarefied retreat setting, > it's not real...it's as artificial as the retreat > or monastery concept itself. One of the other main reasons for going on TM courses was to temporarily accelerate development of consciousness in a way that produced very noticeable experiences as a way of proving to oneself that the practices were having an effect. That didn't mean there was no development outside courses but rather that it was more gradual, and therefore less noticeable, because it *was* being integrated into daily life. Plus which, it isn't the case that "good experiences" were limited to courses. The experiences simply were more frequent and prominent on courses. > Suffice it to say I'm not a fan of the recluse > approach to spiritual development. I don't feel > that ANY subjective experience is valid or of > lasting value unless it can be had while working > in and interfacing with the real world. I don't > think Maharishi ever thought this way Au contraire, MMY *always* thought this way. That's what "200 percent of life" was all about. That was the whole point, in fact. , which is > natural if you think about it because *he* never > really interfaced with the real world. From Day > One he was treated like the monk he was, and > other people both paid for his life and sheltered > him from the real world 24/7. Again, au contraire, at least in the beginning. Read some of the literature about his travels and activities in the early years. I don't think that > he ever had much respect for "career" or for > actual accomplishment out in the world because > he never experienced those things. He was a > dreamer, and his view of the world was IMO > largely a dream, rarely based on reality. And yet he created a movement that very much functioned out in the world, very successfully for a time. He was a dreamer, but unlike many dreamers he was able to actualize his dreams, at least up to a point. > I think that a *balanced* spiritual life is one > in which everyone pays their own way (by working > at some job that allows them to do so), and has > no problem interfacing gracefully and *well* > (meaning successfully) with the world around them, > and with people who aren't a part of the same > spiritual path. Fear of those people or of the > real world -- and a reluctance to interface with > them -- strikes me as what it really is: fear. Whether it's fear or preference is another question. In any case, it's clear that a major, if not the exclusive, focus of the movement has always been for practitioners to interface "gracefully and well with the world around them." The prison program, the outreach to business, and the Natural Law Party are three examples; Lynch's program for schools and colleges and vets is, of course, the current big one. > And when this fear of the real world is glorified, > and the value of subjective experience with no > verification in the real world is glorified -- > for decades -- I don't see this as providing a > balanced path towards integrated spiritual > development. But that may just be me... Bottom line, it's all not quite so cut-and-dried, black and white, as you've presented it. There has been a recluse-type track running parallel to the real-world track, but the former has never eclipsed the latter. The emphasis has varied over time, but the movement has always been about both tracks.
