I second the motion: "Great Post" Many obvious insights; Sometimes the most obvious things escape our attention. Thanks.
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/
