--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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."
<snip>
> > 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.
FWIW, as a lowly TMer, I never saw this from teachers.
If that's what MMY had told them to do, none of the
teachers I had ever did it.
> > 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.
Susan, I appreciate your going into detail below. What
you say is what I've always assumed from the first time
I encountered that quote. We were, after all, learning "Transcendental
Meditation as taught by
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi"; that's what we had paid for.
I'd suggest one other point: those new to TM especially
wouldn't always know *how* to ask a question. The
technique, the experiences, the conceptual teaching were
all unfamiliar, so questions were sometimes posed in the
context of what we *were* familiar with in a way that
simply didn't make sense in the context of what we were
learning. The teacher responding with an "already
prepared" answer translated such questions into the
context of MMY's teaching so they *would* make sense and
could be properly answered. Good teachers on any topic
will do this; it's just sound pedagogy.
> 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.
("Deliver," not "practice.") And of course this was
the only way checking would work as it had been
designed to do.
> > 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.
No, actually what you're doing is trying to convince
TMers of the validity of *your* interpretation of
what the quote meant.
> > 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?
This question itself is empty of meaning. If Barry
were open to actual discussion, one might ask him to
give an example that illustrated his thesis. Chances
are he wouldn't be able to, and then he himself might
have to do a little rethinking.
