Thanks for clarifying your views Vaj.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > 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. >
