On Apr 8, 2011, at 1:52 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > Vaj seems to believe that TM is for dilettantes, spiritual babies who are not > ready for the real deal.
Actually, my experience is many of the people who were heavily into TM were anything but dilettantes. They were quite often very serious about their paths and their practices, and (importantly) remaining consistent with those practices. Many thought they were ready for the real deal AND that they were getting the real deal. It certainly was presented as authentic, after all I was lead to believe TM, et al, came from the northern seat of the Holy Shankaracharya Order. And I grew up as a lover of science, so the science seemed to say, "wow, this was some really good stuff". It lowered the metabolism much more than deep sleep. I was really wowed. So imagine my surprise when I found out it not only did not come from where I was told it did, but as a scientist I found out that Wallace's research, so important in convincing my young (14 year old) mind, was faked. I've followed the science ever since, corresponded and rubbed elbows with the world's best meditation researchers. I've had my own skull wired to an EEG on numerous occasions. And still, the firm conclusion is the same: other than relaxation benefits, there is no evidence of "higher states of consciousness" in TMers. And this after very close examination including numerous claimants to such "higher states". There's a LOT more than this brief description, but that's a start. It doesn't, for example touch on the moral implications of a practice and it's founder, and how I, as a responsible human being, would react to such revelations. > He does however seem to believe in the basic structure of humans gaining > higher states through spiritual practices. He doesn't seem to think TM can > get you there. Well my personal take is that it really depends on the person. > > So does he hate TM? I think he has shown contempt for it as a spiritual > practice and doesn't seem to give Maharishi credit for being the most > important man in human history as he presents himself. But all of this is > motivated by a certain earnestness in the ideal of the whole project of > spiritual practice. He has contempt for TM because he doesn't believe it is > true to its advertising. Can you really fault the guy for that since it is > what he truly believes and it is important to him? His goals seem so similar > to your own. I don't hate anything really. And that's not because there are not things in the world worthy of strong hatred. The fact is, I'm just not a hateful person. Having said that, I do prefer to see things as they really are. And I know what kind of things have happened to TMers, sidhas and the like. I'm just not willing to ignore, fabricate an overlay on top of it or pretend there's some sort of divine "lila" that I'm not privy to. I'm privy to a lot. If anything, science and history has vindicated my own views.
