Wow. Great post. I have to find that issue of Tricycle. It's given me a spiritual niche into which I can finally fit comfortably -- poly-spiritual. Cool.
The P.G. Wodehouse quote is to die for, and perfect. That was it for me, the all-pervading vibe of total certainty, the lack of mystery. For every question there was the already-prepared answer. I decided to bail in search of more questions and fewer answers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the current issue of Tricycle, there is an interview with Shinzen > Young in which the interviewer asks about Young's very > pluralistic background. It seemed to me that his reply was very > significant with respect to the pro/anti polarity in TM: > > I think that some people are naturally poly-spiritual and some people > are mono-spiritual. Mono-spiritual people develop overt or subtle > conflicts if they go with different teachers of approaches, whereas > poly-spiritual people get an immediate sense of the complementary. > I've always been poly-spiritual. There's never been anything > I did with anybody that didn't seem immediately to complement > what I had done with everybody else. p 51 > > From my own perspective, one of the things that compelled my > departure from the mono-TM mindset was Maharishi himself (and, by > extension, his increasingly belligerent, materialistic and > doctrinaire Organization). I sensed, for many reason, conflicts > between what I had learned from other teachers and what he was > saying. I had no problem as far as the TM technique was concerned, > that fit right in with many other things. But it was Maharishi and > the Organization, the "this-only" approach that put me off. > > I had started TM and become a teacher before he set out on his > material conquest. So his "this-only" approach seemed to > develop along with his "what can I sell next" objective > and this just wouldn't work for me. > > However, in another sense, I have known many ardent "pure-TM" > practitioners who can only function in and according to whatever the > present "this-only" is with no sense of conflict with their > own past. As long as it's coming from their personal source, > their concept of personal-guru, it is OK and anything else whether > other than TM or in comparison with TM's past, is decidedly not > OK. I think I might, therefore add to Shinzen Young's categories > another whether it is a third or a sub-set of the mono, I am > not, however, quite sure: TB-spiritual, or maybe PT-spritual (present- > tense-spiritual). > > Obviously, some people need and maybe can only function when there is > one absolute set of rules. And, they simply cannot interact with > others who recognize a polymorphous dominion of values to select > from. > > I worked, once, with a Born Again Christian lady who was very kind, > considerate and so on. Quite innocently one day, I said, "oh, I > just got a copy of my astrological chart, would you like to see > it?" It was really nicely done and, actually, that was just about > it: show-and-tell. To my surprise, she turned away, saying "I > avoid the appearance of all evil." > > Wow > > But I see this a lot with fundamentalists of all sorts. The TB or PT > mindset, whether it cannot consider something outside itself, > generally, or whether it cannot consider "dissimilarities" in > its own makeup, persists in a kind of self-preservation, a clinging > to its Rock of Security and making every effort to abolish anything > that messes with this PT-spirituality or fundamentalism. The > PT'er is far less reasonable and flexible than the mono-believer > or mono-spiritual practitioner. > > One of Maharishi's pronouncements sticks in mind: anything I > haven't taught you isn't worth knowing. Several years later, > he began to go commercial and change TM from a spiritual endeavour > goal-oriented in and of itself, to a means to acquire his > sidhi program. Well, after learning it, I thought his earlier > pronouncement had been right on the mark, it wasn't worth knowing. > > Very slowly, very gradually he tampered with his own `holy' > tradition. It was his, of course, and he could `adjust' it as > he saw fit in order to justify his own needs, but this sort of > behaviour, when it continually locked people into his ever-changing > PT mindset was one of the red-flags that didn't diminish the > worth of his method of meditation, but was a bit like that hilarious > telegram P. G. Wodehouse famously speculated would be such fun to > send friends travelling abroad: all has been discovered, flee at once. > > G ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
