--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Maharishi pandered to this desire to "know." The quote > > > of his I find most telling is, "Every question is the > > > perfect opportunity for the answer we have already > > > prepared." > > > > I used to like that quote, until his contradictions > > started to wear me down and the only rsponse I'd get > > to sceptical questions was "just let it wash over you > > and you'll understand it deep down" or "Don't be analytical" > > or "Maharishi appears contradictory because his mind is > > aware at the subtle levels of nature and natural laws change" > > when the whole point of Laws is that they don't change! > > > > "When you're more enlightened you'll understand" classic > > cult delusions all of them. Had great fun though! > > I see all of these types of replies as the *result* > of believing for years in "pat answers," which is > not what he had in mind with his original quote. > > For the benefit of people here who never met Maharishi, > and certainly never became TM teachers, this quote was > told to prospective TM teachers on their training > courses, as an incentive to learn what can ONLY be > described as "pat answers." He or some other stand-in > teacher would state a question that we were likely to > be asked, either by attendees at one of our TM intro > lectures or by people who had already learned TM. > Then we'd be given the "correct answer" to the ques- > tion, be expected to memorize it, and be tested on > how well we *had* memorized it. The idea was to have > these "pat answers" filed away in our brains so that > they came out automatically, and achieved their > triple purpose. > > The first purpose, of course, was to instill a sense > of confidence in people who, if they were at all > honest with themselves, knew that they didn't know > enough to be true spiritual teachers, and wouldn't > even at the end of their course. By having them > memorize a series of "pat answers," Maharishi hoped > to make them parrots who would repeat *his* "pat > answers" on cue. As anyone familiar with the > resulting "TM speak" knows, this was frighteningly > successful. :-)
Yep, and better than having some of these young, not true spiritual teachers out and trying to come up with answers on their own. Especially if you consider that a student will probably give learning a meditatin technique only 1 or 2 tries. > > On my TTC, Maharishi went so far as to state openly > the second of these purposes, especially for questions > that could be seen as critical or skeptical of what > we (as teachers) were saying. The purpose was to SHUT > THE QUESTIONER UP. We were instructed many times in > the value OF getting them to shut up and stop asking > the questions that they were curious about, and just > "come back to silence," and belief in what we were > trying to sell them. He also taught us -- quite > explicitly -- techniques for how to change the subject > and move it back to something less controversial. This > has become known as the "SIMS shuffle." I do not recall this, myself. > > The third purpose, in my opinion, was to get people > *used to* accepting what the teacher said as not > just pat answers (which they were, of course) but > as *the definitive answers*. The more we practiced > them as teachers, the more *we* believed them. The > more we parroted them, the more our students believed > them. The whole schtick was an exercise in training > people in the master-disciple relationship, and in > getting them to buy into "What the master says is > true," whether it was or not. Not sure I want to jump in on this, but........... It is true that the more we practice answers the more we ourselves believe them. But, to be fair, there were other reasons, good reasons, for having "pat" answers. First, we were all young and not that knowledgable about spiritual things. So, having "correct" answers at the ready was helpful to the teacher (if flummoxed) and also helpful to the student who was really asking what Maharish - the expert - would have said. And Maharish tol dus waht he would have said, and toldus to say it. Second, can you imagine the odd variety of answers that some teachers would have come up with? We were a motley crew, if well intentioned. the quality of teaching would have been so dependent on the individual teaching it, and students coul dhave been really upset with that. Third, Maharishi wanted to standardize his technique, and he did that successfully. I think that in mnay ways it was a smart and safe move for all concerned. TM teachers were not providing teaching in the same sense that an individual guru would - we all knew, Maharishi knew it, and it was not possible to provide that given the numbers of people learning. You could ask if it would have been better that a person never learn to meditate unless studying with a true Master, face to face. But Maharish's approach was to make this technique available, without face to face attention from a master. He tried to offer as much good info thru his trained teachers - keeping it simple and trying to account for all the possible types of questions they might ask. Was it stilted sometimes? Yes. Did some people need much more? Absolutely. But with the massive numbers learning, it was a pretty good solution,I think. The problem came in that it did stop people from thinking on their own, and at a certain point parroting answers can backfire - if you begin to doubt their accuracy, you don't feel free to think or say otherwise. Still, a person wanting to learn TM can learn it the same way not matter who teachers him, and that is a safe and good thing in many ways. Not perfect. Not face to face with a Master, but of value, at least imo, if you think TM is of value. > . > This phrase about the question merely being a cue > for what you have already prepared was echoed in > the TM checking procedure, with instructions that > stated explicitly, "Whatever he says, we acknowledge > by a word: 'Yes, good, fine,' etc." No TM checker > was really listening to anything you said before > they started with the "Let's close the eyes" bit. > They were just waiting for you to finish so that > they could practice more memorized speeches. > > Why I keep bringing this phrase up is to hopefully > get a few of the more open-minded TMers here to > think about what it means to *them*, and to what > *they* were told by Maharishi. > > Those of you who cling to things that you were told > by Maharishi in response to one of your questions, > WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY > RESPONDING TO *YOUR* QUESTION? > > Doesn't it make more sense that he was doing to you > EXACTLY what he taught you to do to other people? > That is, view the question ONLY as an opportunity > to parrot a pat answer he'd already prepared. >
