It is not a no brainer to attempt to determine a person's experience by what they say, particularly just based on text they write. For example, Michael Jackson, to me, sounds angry at times, but I do not really know what he is experiencing. Judy does not typically sound angry to me most of the time. Barry doesn't sound angry to me either. In spite of what and how he writes he seems rather light hearted to me. Curtis is the more serious thinker and he has a forceful way of presenting his thoughts, but that does not mean he is pissed off.
I tend to think of the world in terms of 'structure' and 'content'. Structure underlies content. Take a movie script. There is the structure - how it is put together, and content - what it is about. If we were to consider the art of film making, what makes a film work artistically is the structure; the content is an expression of the underlying structure. The content is 'more superficial' because the same kind of underlying structure can be used with different kinds of content. People who focus on content however will be more attracted to certain films and repelled by others even though they have the same basic artistic under pinnings. That is pretty much like being and form. Being is the underlying structure of experience, and content is the variable. The more you are moved by the content, the more your world is rocked for good or ill. Spiritual development has the characteristic of making a person more autonomous psychologically, that is, less reliance on others concerning how and what one thinks. Maharishi called it self sufficiency. So if these spiritual techniques work, a person should show more and more signs of independent thought and action as time goes on. That various people on this forum have left the TM movement through their own choice or not their own choice - both seem to indicate that self sufficiency and independence of thought are at play. The TMO does not tolerate independent thinking and expression more than a small degree when it comes to the corpus of what Maharishi left behind. So as one develops spiritually in any movement that has viable strategies for growth, if that movement does not encourage independence, self sufficiency, autonomous behaviour, there will eventually be a clash simply because of the success of those strategies. Traditionally a teacher, a 'master', teaches and the students eventually are sent off on their own to teach, or just live their independent autonomous lives. The problem exists when an organisation develops around a teaching, and independence of thought develops in those who are within that matrix of the organisation, by virtue of the organisations own teachings. It is thus the tendency that, for those with the most autonomous characteristics developing, to leave the nest, or be kicked out of the nest, because it is a necessity for further progress, and because for the organisation, since it develops a 'fixed canon' of ideas, for the organisation to maintain its content without alternation. In other words a breakdown of the relationship between an organisation and its developing students is inevitable, because of the growing freedom of the students mind and experience within the framework of an ever more constrained organisational structure as time progresses. This is to say that spiritual development of an individual person and a spiritual organisation tend to be eventually become antithetical to one another by their very nature. This does not mean everyone who becomes 'spiritually advanced' (a rather peculiar term considering what enlightenment is), will walk out or be excommunicated from the fold, but that it is a strong tendency that we observe. It might have to do with the intrinsic characteristics of an individual. Freedom can be scary, not necessarily comfortable. Spiritual progress in not necessarily a cakewalk. You can chicken out by staying in an organisation, staying in the womb, as much as by simply giving up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : As Rick Archer's quote said earlier, the only one wasting his time, is the one running around, shitting on others' spiritual paths. There are basically two approaches to enlightenment - either you go for it, or you don't. C: But you never did "go for it" Jim. You are a couch quarterback for the Maharishi team. J: However, Barry and Curtis, have discovered a third way - You attempt enlightenment, spiritual liberation, for a few years, begin to doubt your progress, and the whole mechanism, drop out, and spend the rest of your life, as an angry outsider, looking in. C: So you are thinking that spiritual life is some kind of contest that you can win and then lord over others? I am unfamiliar with this spiritual path Jim. I think you are confused here. I didn't "doubt my progress" I grew into a world view that did not recognize Maharishi's world view and perspective on my inner experience as authoritative. The "anger" routine you and Nabbie run is all projection. I am sharing my views on a subject that I am interested in here just as you do. J: This doesn't prevent either fool from spouting on at length about spiritual subjects, waaay out of their depth. C: I don't believe you and I would come to a consensus opinion about what the term "spiritual" refers to, so your opinion about my views is irrelevant to me. IF you are trying to self promote yourself as an expert in these matters, that will not happen for me. J: Barry will comment on Maharishi and his enlightenment, without giving it a second thought - yes, like a legless man, coaching a track team, Barry knows it all. J: Barry and Curtis wouldn't know a good meditation experience, if it walked up and shook their hand. C: Here you are disagreeing with Maharishi and his representatives who certified us both as experts in his meditation. Both of us were involved in years of advanced courses devoted to the development of "experience" with Maharishi's programs for higher states of consciousness and when both of us left we were trusted leaders in the organization. You can't rewrite history Jim. You may disagree with my opinion about Maharishi's teaching now, but as far as us ever experiencing what you are making such a fuss about, we are bot certified in it and you are a self proclaimed expert with no formal training comparatively. Not only would we both "know a good meditation" we were trained to evaluate claims by people like you. J: They are rank beginners, waiting anxiously to begin the process of discovering themselves. Let's not take the frightened murmurings of frightened boy as fact, or wisdom, and begin to recognize it for what it really is. C: Here you are just being a troll. Your attempt to elevate your position as expert in Maharishi's teaching is only going to fly with Nabbie who has entered in a collusion of not challenging each other ridiculous claims. I met many Sidhas like you Jim. Trying to bypass Maharishi's movement cast system in a self created power struggle with the teachers. If you are so into Maharishi's teaching why didn't you actually study it in any depth? Do you regret that? When I went to spend 4 years at Sidhaland after 4 years at MIU it was to perfect the sidhis on Maharishi's invitation. Where were you Jim? The invitation was open to everyone. Perhaps all this animosity is a projection of your own lack of commitment to Maharishi's programs. As far as I am concerned I gave him 100% when I was in. You are the dilettante in his teaching. But understanding his teaching is not your goal. You think you can use this as a form of oneupmanship personally. What's with that routine? Do you know what it reveals about you? J:This is not to say, that spiritual topics do not have many sides, and some controversy. However we would much rather hear form those with more experiences than these disgruntles neophytes. C: Nice try at a "I'm really not unhinged" save Jim. The tern "disgruntled" is a sophist trick. I left the movement because my further studies revealed to me the issues with Maharishi's world view. I grew out of it and gained much self knowledge in the process. It is a continuing process of growth as I discuss topics here that interest me. I saw your Batgap interview. I have read mountains of your posts proclaiming yourself as a special person with superior "experiences" to others here. It comes off as wacky and narcissistic Jim. I don't judge you for your experiences as much as for the lack of creative output you have shown in your writing. As Louis Armstrong said "you blows what you is." And what you are putting down here is what I would sum up as dim self-serving unpleasantness.
