--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "TurquoiseB" <turquoiseb@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jpgillam" <jpgillam@> wrote: > > > > in 1977, my TM teacher training course leaders were > > adamant about being accompanied by a buddy at all > > times. Going somewhere unaccompanied was a good > > way to get dismissed from the course. > > And you never considered this demeaning and > insulting? > > In the guidelines sent from Seelisberg to the > Regional Offices back in the mid-70s for teachers > of residence courses, it clearly stated that the > schedules of the courses had been designed to > *prevent* the participants from having any time > alone (except in meditation or sleep), and to > *prevent* them from having any "free time." No > reasons for this were given in writing, but in > a followup phone call to the Regional Office, > one Seelisberg toady gave the reasons as follows: > "If they're not kept busy all the time, or with > someone else all the time, they might develop > doubts about TM or the program. It's our job > to prevent that from happening."
But that makes no sense. Being with a buddy doesn't stop you from having doubts. Buddies can even reinforce each other's doubts. And the course leaders can't decree that you fall asleep the minute you enter your room at night. You can stay awake all night hashing over your doubts. Sounds like this particular toady was making it up. > Compare and contrast to organizations in which > doubt is considered a natural part of the spir- > itual process, and open questions about those > doubts are freely answered and dealt with. The > TM approach was to keep such questions from > ever arising. In my experience, doubts were freely expressed during the course meetings. And teachers would try to respond to them, not keep them from being discussed. > And this was *before* the "You've all got to > do your meditations and your butt-bouncing > together, in one room, where we can keep track > of you" mindset took over. I would suggest that > the latter is an outgrowth of the former. That's just paranoid. > I don't know how you feel about all this, but > my position is that NO spiritual organization > has the right to control what I choose to do > during periods of "free time" or attempt to > try to make sure I don't have any. Of course it has a right to do this. If you're using the organization's facilities and taking advantage of the teaching and practice the course provides, the organization has a perfect right to set the rules, just as you have a perfect right not to go on the course if you find the rules impossible to follow. But that's a *different issue* from whether the rules make sense. It's entirely possible to decide to go along with rules you think are silly in exchange for the opportunity to take advantage of whatever the course is offering. Adults in general do this all the time in many areas of society when they feel the benefits of whatever it is they want to do are worth the inconvenience or annoyance of going along with the rules. If they believe the rules are really harmful, they may engage in civil disobedience or other activism to change the rules. But they don't usually pick trivial rules to challenge--it's not worth it.
