Hey Turq, Let me be playful here and see if this very fine work of yours below can be doubted too. (Emphasis on the words playful and fine.) Might give us some insight into Maharishi and others who have taken on that terrible burden: dhoti, divan, and divination. Just keep hearing me giggling in the background as you read, and be ready to praise me for the tremendous effort it requires for me to disagree with your concepts. I'm hoping to neutralize your words so that my nervous system will, as if, have never identified with your words, and thus I will be freed thereby from attachment to your, oh-so-sweet, "truths."
TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems to me, based on my reading here and on a > number of other spiritual forums, that a lot can be > learned about spiritual movements and about the > spiritual seekers within them by how they respond > to the "D" word -- DOUBT. I doubt it. As if any insight into anything can be achieved by merely having the ego using the intellect as a flashlight to shine into the back of God's mind. As if whatever came out of anyone's mouth could be read like yarrow stalks. As if "a lot" about any spiritual movement could be as small as merely knowing how some members of the group react in a deeply negative way towards doubters. As if anyone could be such an expert psychologist that a few samplings of a few of the group's members could be definitive. Would anyone here want the TM movement to be judged by examining the self-serving doubts of the likes of DeAngelis, Gray, Bloomfield or by examining the doubts of the likes of me? The whole truth would not emerge, right? And, I know some folks in Fairfield who were crazy -- yes, insane -- when seen from certain perspectives. I dare not name names of these edge-of-society minions, these "broken ones" who found a home of sorts in Fairfield. But who would say that the movement should be judged by the thoughts of these poor souls that are so heroically dealing with incredible angst? So I very much doubt that anyone can really know much about any movement without, you know, being subjected to its dynamics for decades. After such a time, I find that my "TM situation" is so complex that I dare not judge anyone in the movement -- (but of course I doubt that notion too, and so I judge.) > In some spiritual movements and traditions, doubt is > looked upon as a *healthy* thing. I remember meeting > a Paulist (Catholic) priest who told me that within > his order, no one was ever trusted with a position of > power within the Church until after they'd gone > through their own "dark night of the soul" and had > some serious doubts about the Church and Christ and > their relationships with both. Before they'd gone > through that, they were looked upon as novices, > "newbies," buying whatever had been told to them > without really ever questioning it, and in the process > of questioning it, making it "theirs." I doubt it. What don't you understand about the futility of "analyzing the dark?" We all know that the blind can think of reasons all day long for the "why" of something, but until the light goes on, everyone in the room is wrong all the time. No amount of doubt can be the basis of faith and clarity. No practicing of all the ways to have an erroneous thought can be the foundation of training the mind for truth -- which cannot be told. No studying of the cave-wall's shadows will prepare you to meet the actual folks casting those shadows. Doubters in movements may seem to have cultured their nervous systems to see all the false in addition to all the true, and it may seem that such a wider ken would be the basis of enlightenment, but ask Indra about knowing everything -- except one thing: how to escape Indra-ness! The meek inherit the earth -- a diploma in darkness is not required. Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. So, doubting darkness? I doubt it. > I've encountered other Eastern traditions in which > doubt is also seen as a very natural thing, and > actually encouraged. In face-to-face meetings with > the spiritual teachers of these traditions, it is > permitted and encouraged to ask ANYTHING, and to > question ANY teaching or point of dogma. In one > Tibetan tradition I know of, there is a system of > formal debate in which students are regularly > "assigned" the task of defending the very *opposite* > of the dogma that they believe and have been told is > correct. Interestingly, within ALL of these traditions, > there is *no concept* of being declared anathema, > of being told to leave the study or the movement. How sweet my memories at the 1971 Humboldt month-long course. 1500 seekers, half of them hippies, asking Maharishi every question possible. Three sessions of a couple hours each, every day, question upon question asked and answered in such a way that most of us were thrilled. If any of us were asked about why we were thrilled, newbies that we were, who would have taken such comments as authoritative about the TM movement -- suckers that we were to be buying into a movement with, really now, so little information or understanding about what was going to happen to us over the next 40 years? And who would have pulled aside any grumpy looking folks coming from the lecture halls and asked them for why they were feeling shaky and hope to really grok the movement by listening to their doubts? So, no, TM started out that way -- with Maharishi really fielding some pretty tough questions, handling doubts all day long, but hardly any of us were improved by that in a way that kept us "in the chair." Yeah, many other movements and dogmas could be discounted, so one could take the mantra and not be beleaguered with thoughts of about maybe there could be a better guru to find, but only the silences reached kept us meditating -- not our naive projections of our best hopes for ourselves upon Maharishi. Truth be told, as much as every initiator could "sling it," today, I recognize that almost no one in the movement really did get very clear about, well, just about everything. Ask me what definitions I would give for our sacred buzz words back then. Ask me back then what the difference was between the Absolute and the Relative, what was the value of a soul, how a thought is formed, if egoic immortality was good, and on and on I could ask questions that, well, I just had canned answered for -- no real depth, and in many cases, I had an actual "wrong understanding." I was confused -- simply confused -- and yet, fresh out of teacher training, I was strutting like I was some sort of Krisna-Freud-o-matic that could slice and dice anyone's travail. > Compare and contrast to other spiritual traditions > in which doubt is looked upon as a weakness, or as > something that has to be hidden from the powers that > be, or worst, can be grounds for excommunication, > for being told that your doubt has no place in the > movement in question, and that you should get the > hell out and stay out and take your doubts with you. I doubt it. Surely you can see the higher needs of an ashramic setting where pure intent, dogmatic clarity, and right action are being practiced. Surely you can understand that allowing "just anyone" to join the community would be very risky. Surely you see that a group of folks who are "really trying hard," deserve to not be disturbed by the actions of those without such commitments. Not that that tactic works! One only has to ask how many public demonstrations of levitation we've gotten from our Mother Diviners and Purusholics. But surely you understand the need to create a space for such endeavors. There's kindergarten raucousness and there's advance graduate course piety, right? > Being a lifelong doubter myself, it probably goes > without saying that I'm happier with the former > situation. :-) I can make a case for the latter > approach, in which doubt is demonized and driven > out of the gates of the monastery the moment it > rears its ugly head, but I honestly believe that > this approach is self-defeating, not to mention > Self-defeating. I doubt it. I'm trying hard here to make your case for you, to show you that a community of uptight, shushing, smart-assed religious geekazoids can culture spiritual evolution. And just to be sure I'm not wearing a mask here, let me confess that if levitation was demonstrated by a movement foam jock, I'd probably sign up for the governor recert course tomorrow. I still can be had at hover. And, I'd be a major shusher from then on too. Advaita is one thing to attach myself to, but I'd almost certainly toss it for a hover. Yeah, I'm that weak. I'd beg them to let me on the recert course. GAWD I'm so ashamed! But, whew, right now, after decades of waiting for Godot, I'm feeling pretty safe -- I don't see any miracle makers being produced by the TM methods such that I would believe I could be miraculous too if I but applied myself. Those days passed long ago when I found that the movement had not the least concern for my problems or possibilities in the real world -- unless they could get money from me by exploiting my mundane addictions. But miss not my point, I firmly believe that if any group started churning out floaters like Fords off an assembly line, well, for sure, there'd be a very very seriously applied dogma and protocol to follow, or one would be tossed out of that movement's "fliers program." > I guess this is just another way of thanking Rick > for creating a forum on which doubt is not only > allowed, but encouraged, and treated as if it were > a healthy and normal part of the spiritual path. > Such forums are rare, and to be treasured. I doubt it. Like me and you, Rick's got his agendas, his favorites, but yeah, nice of him to have us over for tea. But, really, this message board is just another place. Surely you don't mean that some of the petty things that have happened here could be, by your mere declaration, elevated to the level of "spiritual discourse." As if spitting on someone's "mind flow," -- seen so frequently here -- was worthy of this so-called "rare forum' that you have romanticized into existence. The folks here are replete with all the vagaries of almost any crowd. The bell curve reigns. Got some folks here who are as welcome as heart burn. Got some folks here who you wonder why they'd stick around only to see their purity, their hearts manifesting in words, being juxtaposed with the postings of others that are coming from some fairly dark places. Where is harmony if the whole orchestra is on tune -- except for the tuba player? This is not the place for exploring the depths, so much as it is a place where the very existence of the depths is sometimes ridiculed and prompts ad hominen attacks. Who would send their child to such a school? This place is only for tough veterans -- folks who have been inside the grinder, ya know? > Earlier today I was told by some students of a > former spiritual teacher of mine that I was essen- > tially evil because I didn't buy the "Party Line" > that all of the women students he slept with did > so willingly, and that they all benefited from the > experience. I was told this by students who have > studiously avoided ever hearing any stories to the > contrary; they have never talked to the women involved. > I have. And so, do I have doubts that all of the guy's > actions were appropriate? You betcha. I doubt it. Let's admit that we know not the ways of God. He's allowing a ton of turmoil in everyone's life, right? He's said to have a vast wisdom -- not, you know, some sick twistedness that loves to see suffering only, but, a wisdom that sees the necessity of suffering in any duality. And if we allow for God to have this freedom to create, then, perforce we must allow God to create gurus who are trying to boinkify every skirt they can grab the hem of -- and HOLY YIKES! that this is for the growth of those "lucky ladies." That, honestly now, the guru sees that sex with those ladies will take 20 years off their evolutionary time-lines. Gulp! I mean, if God is true, anything can be true, right? If we don't know EVERYTHING, we can be wrong about anything, right? I love my Jewish friends, so let me warn all of them that I'm being extreme here merely to make a point -- but yes, God could have created the Holocaust for a good reason. For instance, Arjuna could have re-incarnated as Hitler because God assured him that his work was not yet finished -- that some of the evil Kauravas had incarnated and were trying to avoid their bad karma by posing as "the innocent Jews of Europe." Outrageous thought! Horrid concept! But if we don't allow God to have that freedom, to be that deeply dramatic over the lifetimes of billions of souls, then we don't really want a redoubtable God and instead are hoping for a doubtable God. It's about faith, not certainty, right? > It reminded me of reactions here when the same subject > comes up with regard to Maharishi. There are people > here who have *no problem* believing that Maharishi > was human, and scored him some very human nookie > along the Way, and who RESPECT HIM ANYWAY. Those are > my kinda people, the ones who are unafraid to express > their normal, everyday doubts, and who refuse to be > intimidated into hiding them. High five all around > to those kinda people from me. You make the spiritual > path worth walking. I doubt it. And, boy, it's so hard to keep this doubting up. I'm staining for ya, Turq! And, so I have to tell ya that there are no people here. It's just words on your screen that you are interpreting. There is only one Self. Whence this blemish? There is only God. And to be allured by intuitive resonance with a mere portion of creation is THE deepest of addictions. If you cannot love the existence of, say, an Andy Rymer, then you cannot love at all. As hard as that is, you must love everything EQUALLY. No matter how hot the bullet searing a hole through your heart, you must love the person who shot it. Personally, I'm not there yet, but, yes, the Hitlers, Rymers and all the others who, you know, spew ruin, must be loved. Not egoically loved -- but, yes, loved as only God can love, loved as only the screen can love any image shone upon it. Every soul is an illusion after all. We're all as impotent as comic strip characters. Might as well admit that we love all the really creepy types in the Dilbert strip -- and, as much as we resonate with Dilbert, we love to see him challenged by the inanity of corporate culture. So, Turq, I'd say you need about ten Hail Marys and two Our Fathers, get lots of bed rest, and reconsider your stance in the morning. I know you can do this. I know you can love Bevan, come on now, do the exercise, write to us all about how wonderful creation is and that Bevan is exactly what the doctor ordered for us all. Whew, done. That was tough, tough, though. But you were worth it, Turq. ;-) Edg
