[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: It's very easy to dismiss experiences you haven't had on the grounds that the mind can fool you and make patterns out of nothing. But it's not very intellectually honest. In fact, it sounds a lot as though that conclusion is your mind making a pattern that you're more comfortable with. I believe that there was mass hysteria in the room. It is hardly intellectually dishonest to come to that opinion. Your description *perfectly* matches the Fiuggi Twitchers, years before the siddhis ever appeared. At that course, a number of people (probably a dozen or so) began having uncontrollable twitches and spasms. We're not talking simple muscle tics, we're talking their arms and legs flailing about, Tourette's Syndrome as they began shouting out random words, etc. And this was both during meditation and out of it. These people were out of control. Maharishi's approach to the problem was to ask them to all sit together in a group at the front of the lecture hall. And voila, the minute they all came together, all of the twitches would begin to escalate. Arms shooting out like Dr. Strangelove's shout- ing out things in the middle of one of his talks, that sort of thing. It was *clearly* a mass hysteria experience. I felt exactly the same thing with the siddhis, first on my course (where, to be honest, there was very little acting out) and later, in the L.A. flying room, a groady warehouse in West L.A. packed with foam and dirty sheets. It got so bad that many people, including myself, just stopped going, because the moaners and groaners and twitchers clearly fed off each other, and off the attention they were getting. They made it appear as if something good was happening, when in my opinion they were just indulging. I have read about suggestibility. I have read about cognition. I have met highly suggestible people. I have met people who unequivocally made cognitive errors about experiences. I draw my opinions based upon my knowledge and experience. It has nothing to do with comfort or discomfort. I acknowledge that these are opinions, not fact, and thus may be wrong. I say that I have yet to be convinced that my opinions are not correct. This hardly intellectually dishonest. I agree. Intellectually dishonest was Judy pretending that the carload of bullshit she trotted out to explain her concern for you was real. I've never heard so much shit spouted by one individual in my life. That is why I parodied her language and suggested five or six colonics. Why oh why couldn't she just have been HONEST, as she claims to be, and said, Ok, Curtis...you got me. I suggested that Ruth was having a break- down of some kind and needed to seek psychological help BECAUSE i DON'T LIKE HER. She is smarter than I am and she gets more attention on this forum than I do. I can't STAND that, and have to lash out when it happens. THAT would have been refreshing honesty. Instead, she shoveled out lines and lines and lines of obvious bullshit, and my bet is that everyone who plowed through it wearing hip boots came out the other side believing EXACTLY what I wrote above, not what she wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: Noisy flying rooms were the norm for a long time until one day Marshy happened to be walking past the one at Seelisberg (I think it was) and later asked what all the noise was about as YF should be done silently. After that, it was. Easy as that. Clearly, expectations of the type of behaviour expected have a part to play in this. I was hoping that someone would weigh in on this. I remembered the incident having been mentioned, but couldn't remember the details, and Yahoo Search is not working for me. THIS is the story that makes mass hysteria the only plausible explanation for such public displays of idiocy. The same thing finally happened in Fiuggi, after the course leaders threatened to send the twitchers home and not make them teachers. Suddenly most of the twitching stopped or, if it was still present, was suppressed and no longer put on display as if something good was happening. That's why I use the word indulging when referring to the people who do this. It's just like coming back to the mantra. If they have the ability to NOT indulge in it (it being either pursuing thoughts in meditation rather than coming back to the mantra or barking/ grunting/shouting/twitching/making an ass of yourself on the foam), then the phenomenon is clearly a candidate for mass hysteria. If when the mass hysteria is no longer indulged by those in power it suddenly stops, then it never needed to be indulged in the first place. I think that the ultimate source of such phen- omena can be found in a fundamental piece of dogma that most TMers bought into during the three days of checking and have never examined since to see if it was true: TM is 100% life- supporting. This, in my opinion, is complete and utter bull- shit. It is used as a thought-stopper to explain away negative physical and emotional side effects of TM or the siddhis as unstressing. It is also used as a club to bash anyone who complains of something that clearly is NOT life-supporting, like developing headaches in meditation. The response in those cases is to blame the victim: It's YOUR fault...you must be 'straining on the mantra.' The fault, IMO, lies in the dogma itself. and the blind acceptance of it by far too many otherwise intelligent people who would never stand for it if it were told to them, say, by the salesman who sold them the car that is now billowing smoke from its engine compartment. Can you imagine being told by that salesman, It's OK...it's just some normal unstressing on the part of the car. Take it easy, take it as it comes. Everything will be fine because it's just not *possible* for this to be an indicator that something is wrong with the car. The car is 100% perfect. And yet tens of thousands of people bought this hook, line, and sinker when TM teachers told it to them. They *accepted* physical ailments or physical discomfort as something good happening. They *accepted* emotional imbalance so strong that it destroyed marriages and friendships and lives and kept them in many cases from being able to hold a job in the real world. All of these things just HAD to somehow be *their* fault, for either having created the stress or bad karma that came out this way, or for being Off The Program. I'm pretty sure that most people here have met TMers who have turned indulging in these negative behaviors into almost a full-time *career*, and have excused their indulgence in emotional outbursts or rudeness for *decades* as unstressing. I call it what I think it is -- indulging. And indulging for the poorest of all possible reasons, to keep from ever examining that fundamentally flawed piece of dogma TM is 100% life-supporting. Belief in this crap is why Levi Butler is dead. Some schmuck of a Dean believed so strongly that nothing bad could ever happen in a 100% life- supporting environment that he allowed *murder* to happen. And he probably still works there as a Dean. THAT is how strongly TMers believe in this crap dogma.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: It's very easy to dismiss experiences you haven't had on the grounds that the mind can fool you and make patterns out of nothing. But it's not very intellectually honest. In fact, it sounds a lot as though that conclusion is your mind making a pattern that you're more comfortable with. I believe that there was mass hysteria in the room. It is hardly intellectually dishonest to come to that opinion. Your description *perfectly* matches the Fiuggi Twitchers, years before the siddhis ever appeared. At that course, a number of people (probably a dozen or so) began having uncontrollable twitches and spasms. We're not talking simple muscle tics, we're talking their arms and legs flailing about, Tourette's Syndrome as they began shouting out random words, etc. And this was both during meditation and out of it. These people were out of control. Maharishi's approach to the problem was to ask them to all sit together in a group at the front of the lecture hall. And voila, the minute they all came together, all of the twitches would begin to escalate. Arms shooting out like Dr. Strangelove's shout- ing out things in the middle of one of his talks, that sort of thing. It was *clearly* a mass hysteria experience. I felt exactly the same thing with the siddhis, first on my course (where, to be honest, there was very little acting out) and later, in the L.A. flying room, a groady warehouse in West L.A. packed with foam and dirty sheets. It got so bad that many people, including myself, just stopped going, because the moaners and groaners and twitchers clearly fed off each other, and off the attention they were getting. They made it appear as if something good was happening, when in my opinion they were just indulging. Noisy flying rooms were the norm for a long time until one day Marshy happened to be walking past the one at Seelisberg (I think it was) and later asked what all the noise was about as YF should be done silently. After that, it was. Easy as that. Clearly, expectations of the type of behaviour expected have a part to play in this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I was hoping that someone would weigh in on this. I remembered the incident having been mentioned, but couldn't remember the details, and Yahoo Search is not working for me. I can see your disappointment ! No response from normal healthy people, within or outside the TMO, about something that happened more than thirty (30) years ago ! And nobody like yourself writing more than forty (40) posts a week about a group they participated in more than thirty (30) years ago. It seems most people simply have moved on and you are almost the only one obsessed with this. Why ? Beacuse most people are sane and you are not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: It's very easy to dismiss experiences you haven't had on the grounds that the mind can fool you and make patterns out of nothing. But it's not very intellectually honest. In fact, it sounds a lot as though that conclusion is your mind making a pattern that you're more comfortable with. Yeah, Ruth...listen up! For example, if Judy uses up all but a few of her posts before the sun rises on the Monday morning of a posting week and none of the TM critics have posted more than usual, that is a pattern that indicates to her that THEY are distraught and she's not. See how simple things can be when you don't try to project patterns onto reality just because you're more comfortable with them? :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: more comfortable with. Yeah, Ruth...listen up! For example, if Judy uses up all but a few of her posts before the sun rises on the Monday morning of a posting week and none of the TM critics have posted more than usual, that is a pattern that indicates to her that THEY are distraught and she's not. Thus spoke a very, very troubled individual.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: more comfortable with. Yeah, Ruth...listen up! For example, if Judy uses up all but a few of her posts before the sun rises on the Monday morning of a posting week and none of the TM critics have posted more than usual, that is a pattern that indicates to her that THEY are distraught and she's not. Thus spoke a very, very troubled individual. Boy, I'll say. It's not clear why he would think distress is measured only in numbers of posts, as opposed to the *tone* of the posts; nor is it easy to understand how he somehow misses the fact that there are a lot of TM critics here expressing their distress and only a handful of TM supporters to respond to them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: It's very easy to dismiss experiences you haven't had on the grounds that the mind can fool you and make patterns out of nothing. But it's not very intellectually honest. In fact, it sounds a lot as though that conclusion is your mind making a pattern that you're more comfortable with. I believe that there was mass hysteria in the room. It is hardly intellectually dishonest to come to that opinion. I have read about suggestibility. I have read about cognition. I have met highly suggestible people. I have met people who unequivocally made cognitive errors about experiences. I draw my opinions based upon my knowledge and experience. It has nothing to do with comfort or discomfort. I acknowledge that these are opinions, not fact, and thus may be wrong. I say that I have yet to be convinced that my opinions are not correct. This hardly intellectually dishonest. You and I can disagree without either of us being painted as dishonest. You can disagree with me without minimizing my opinion which happens to be different than your opinion. You are one of the few people I have ever met who appears unwilling to agree to disagree. Your analogy to sex and orgasm was interesting. Of course, sexual response is mostly in the head. So to speak.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: It's very easy to dismiss experiences you haven't had on the grounds that the mind can fool you and make patterns out of nothing. But it's not very intellectually honest. In fact, it sounds a lot as though that conclusion is your mind making a pattern that you're more comfortable with. I believe that there was mass hysteria in the room. It is hardly intellectually dishonest to come to that opinion. I have read about suggestibility. I have read about cognition. I have met highly suggestible people. I have met people who unequivocally made cognitive errors about experiences. I draw my opinions based upon my knowledge and experience. It has nothing to do with comfort or discomfort. I acknowledge that these are opinions, not fact, and thus may be wrong. I say that I have yet to be convinced that my opinions are not correct. This hardly intellectually dishonest. We'll have to, um, agree to disagree about whether it's intellectually honest. It's simply too easy to relegate reports of experiences that don't fit into your worldview to cognitive error or suggestion. (If you can *prove* that they are, that's a different story. But that you can prove that *some* instances are cognitive error or suggestion is not a good basis for the assumption that other such experiences are as well. You need to take them on a case-by-case basis and not generalize.) You and I can disagree without either of us being painted as dishonest. You can disagree with me without minimizing my opinion which happens to be different than your opinion. You are one of the few people I have ever met who appears unwilling to agree to disagree. Actually I do agree to disagree from time to time. But it depends on the specific disagreement. Your analogy to sex and orgasm was interesting. Of course, sexual response is mostly in the head. So to speak. Yes. My point was that making strange noises in response to strong physical sensations can be involuntary, rather than hysterical. I was never a big noisemaker in group program, but at one point when I'd been practicing by myself for some time, for several weeks, every time I hopped, I started to laugh. It was a purely physical response, not a sense of anything being funny, and not a response to seeing someone else laughing. (Granted, after it happened a few times during a hopping session, the fact that I was laughing every time I hopped became funny in its own right.) Then it just stopped on its own. No idea what caused it. Not a big deal in and of itself, just a data point. From another post of yours: - --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: I'm very glad to hear that. Really? - Yes, really. I wouldn't wish what I was afraid you were feeling on anybody, because I've been through that level of despair (albeit in a different context) myself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: It's very easy to dismiss experiences you haven't had on the grounds that the mind can fool you and make patterns out of nothing. But it's not very intellectually honest. In fact, it sounds a lot as though that conclusion is your mind making a pattern that you're more comfortable with. I believe that there was mass hysteria in the room. It is hardly intellectually dishonest to come to that opinion. I have read about suggestibility. I have read about cognition. I have met highly suggestible people. I have met people who unequivocally made cognitive errors about experiences. I draw my opinions based upon my knowledge and experience. It has nothing to do with comfort or discomfort. I acknowledge that these are opinions, not fact, and thus may be wrong. I say that I have yet to be convinced that my opinions are not correct. This hardly intellectually dishonest. We'll have to, um, agree to disagree about whether it's intellectually honest. It's simply too easy to relegate reports of experiences that don't fit into your worldview to cognitive error or suggestion. (If you can *prove* that they are, that's a different story. But that you can prove that *some* instances are cognitive error or suggestion is not a good basis for the assumption that other such experiences are as well. You need to take them on a case-by-case basis and not generalize.) Give me a break. I come to a different OPINION and you find intellectual dishonesty. That involves so many assumptions on your part that there could be no reasonable discussion with you on the issue. Do you not see how insulting you sound? I did my due diligence and you refuse to believe that I have legitimate grounds for my opinion. We are not talking fact here. We are talking opinions and impressions. You seem to be reading more into what I am saying than what I said. I have similar impressions and opinions from watching people speak in tongues at a church service. You and I can disagree without either of us being painted as dishonest. You can disagree with me without minimizing my opinion which happens to be different than your opinion. You are one of the few people I have ever met who appears unwilling to agree to disagree. Actually I do agree to disagree from time to time. But it depends on the specific disagreement. Not responsive. Your analogy to sex and orgasm was interesting. Of course, sexual response is mostly in the head. So to speak. Yes. My point was that making strange noises in response to strong physical sensations can be involuntary, rather than hysterical. I never said voluntary. Certainly the noises can be involuntary. That is the nature of hysteria. Duh. snip - --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm very glad to hear that. Really? - Yes, really. I wouldn't wish what I was afraid you were feeling on anybody, because I've been through that level of despair (albeit in a different context) myself. I removed the post as it was too pointless. However, the more I listen to you the less I believe your sincerity. You express no respect for me whatsoever so any professed empathy is suspect. The more I read you the more I have the impression that you and Turq are alike. He pokes and prods you, not indicating that he cares at all about you and the negative effect he has on you.You poke and prod others also without a care of how you come off to others and effect others. Well, I am sure you are having fun engaging me. Because I don't like you and would rather not be a game for you, I'll sign off for now and go back to ignoring you. Ta.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: It's very easy to dismiss experiences you haven't had on the grounds that the mind can fool you and make patterns out of nothing. But it's not very intellectually honest. In fact, it sounds a lot as though that conclusion is your mind making a pattern that you're more comfortable with. I believe that there was mass hysteria in the room. It is hardly intellectually dishonest to come to that opinion. I have read about suggestibility. I have read about cognition. I have met highly suggestible people. I have met people who unequivocally made cognitive errors about experiences. I draw my opinions based upon my knowledge and experience. It has nothing to do with comfort or discomfort. I acknowledge that these are opinions, not fact, and thus may be wrong. I say that I have yet to be convinced that my opinions are not correct. This hardly intellectually dishonest. You and I can disagree without either of us being painted as dishonest. You can disagree with me without minimizing my opinion which happens to be different than your opinion. You are one of the few people I have ever met who appears unwilling to agree to disagree. Your analogy to sex and orgasm was interesting. Of course, sexual response is mostly in the head. So to speak. Ruth, your and Curtis' responses to Judy are grounded, eminently sane and much more patient than I would ever be with her. I find her cartoonishly full of herself. It will be (sort of) interesting to see if she is capable of acknowledging a flaw, any problem at all, in her point of view here. Scratch that, it won't be that interesting. Nothing about her is. But I give you both huge kudos for your patience and understanding with this woman. You two are much better advertisements for the goals of TM in the way you conduct yourselves than Judy could ever dream of.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: It's very easy to dismiss experiences you haven't had on the grounds that the mind can fool you and make patterns out of nothing. But it's not very intellectually honest. In fact, it sounds a lot as though that conclusion is your mind making a pattern that you're more comfortable with. I believe that there was mass hysteria in the room. It is hardly intellectually dishonest to come to that opinion. I have read about suggestibility. I have read about cognition. I have met highly suggestible people. I have met people who unequivocally made cognitive errors about experiences. I draw my opinions based upon my knowledge and experience. It has nothing to do with comfort or discomfort. I acknowledge that these are opinions, not fact, and thus may be wrong. I say that I have yet to be convinced that my opinions are not correct. This hardly intellectually dishonest. We'll have to, um, agree to disagree about whether it's intellectually honest. It's simply too easy to relegate reports of experiences that don't fit into your worldview to cognitive error or suggestion. (If you can *prove* that they are, that's a different story. But that you can prove that *some* instances are cognitive error or suggestion is not a good basis for the assumption that other such experiences are as well. You need to take them on a case-by-case basis and not generalize.) Give me a break. I come to a different OPINION and you find intellectual dishonesty. Yes, it's my OPINION that your OPINION is intellectually dishonest. That involves so many assumptions on your part that there could be no reasonable discussion with you on the issue. Which assumptions you'll regretfully decline to state. Do you not see how insulting you sound? I did my due diligence Yes, you've already made that assertion at least twice now. and you refuse to believe that I have legitimate grounds for my opinion. I'm saying I believe you do NOT have legitimate grounds for your opinion and that your due diligence was not diligent enough. We are not talking fact here. We are talking opinions and impressions. Yes, as I said, it's my impression that your opinion is intellectually dishonest. You seem to be reading more into what I am saying than what I said. Such as? I note that you've cleverly avoided addressing the basis for my objection. I have similar impressions and opinions from watching people speak in tongues at a church service. I'd be surprised if you didn't. I'd be surprised if you didn't have similar impressions and opinions about any reported experience whose implications didn't jibe with your worldview. You and I can disagree without either of us being painted as dishonest. You can disagree with me without minimizing my opinion which happens to be different than your opinion. You are one of the few people I have ever met who appears unwilling to agree to disagree. Actually I do agree to disagree from time to time. But it depends on the specific disagreement. Not responsive. Let me try again: You and I could disagree without either of us being painted as intellectually dishonest if neither of us felt the other's opinion was intellectually dishonest. I could disagree with you without minimizing (whatever that means) your opinion which happens to be different than my opinion if I didn't think it merited being minimized. In other words, as I said, it depends on the disagreement whether I'm willing to agree to disagree. Your analogy to sex and orgasm was interesting. Of course, sexual response is mostly in the head. So to speak. Yes. My point was that making strange noises in response to strong physical sensations can be involuntary, rather than hysterical. I never said voluntary. Certainly the noises can be involuntary. That is the nature of hysteria. Duh. Oh, I see. We seem to have a definitional problem, then. I don't suppose you'd care to define what you mean by hysteria. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm very glad to hear that. Really? - Yes, really. I wouldn't wish what I was afraid you were feeling on anybody, because I've been through that level of despair (albeit in a different context) myself. I removed the post as it was too pointless. However, the more I listen to you the less I believe your sincerity. You express no respect for me whatsoever so any professed empathy is suspect. So you have to respect somebody before you are able to empathize with their pain? Do you believe that's a universal human trait? The more I
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: I found the same dissatisfaction with the TM answers. Time has led to even more dissatisfaction because the pudding had no proof. Just sitting and meditating did not do it for me. The switch was off. My aha moment at the siddhis course was instrumental, when I knew (subjectively of course) deep inside that I did not believe and people were feeding off of each other's hysteria. The siddhis ended TM for me. Maybe this is why I say that you cannot separate simple TM from the rest. After all, it is all one big theory about how consciousness works. I would say live and let live (like I do with Christianity, etc.) but the cult of TM has effected my life and harmed my relationships. So I get testy when I hear that TM is so wonderful. Especially when I hear it is so wonderful for relationships with others and will make a peaceful world. It was not wonderful for my relationships and some of the most irritable people I know are meditators. This is not science, this is my experience and it effects how I feel about TM. Didn't MMY say trust your experience? I am. Trusting your experience is fine. Having an aha moment in which you know you don't believe is fine. What's *not* fine, IMHO, is including in that aha moment of knowledge about your own lack of belief the knowledge that other people are feeding off of each other's hysteria. The hysteria was clear to me on the siddhis course. As I said, it was a subjective experience.But based on my education and experience, I believe my conclusion was well founded. Of course, I might be wrong, but I have yet to see evidence which would discount my opinion. So, I believe that it is fine to hold my opinion. Just as it is fine for you to hold your opinions on the potential effectiveness of the siddhis. That's just a way to make yourself feel better about your inability to have good results. You are mindreading me again. It is insulting. You did not have my experiences. I have no need to feel better about lack of good results. Frankly, I feel just fine about it. It just interests me the way people experience the world differently. We don't know why some people get results and some don't. But that some people don't get results does *not* automatically mean that all the others aren't really getting results either. I never said that others are not getting results. I just question the meaning of the results that they get. I was clear that my impressions were subjective. Sometimes life just ain't fair. Sometimes it's really, really complicated and ambiguous and contradictory, and we can't sort it out into neat little piles. Sometimes it's more like quantum mechanics than Newtonian mechanics. (That's an *analogy*, not an equivalence.) And we're stuck with it. Yup. I say this all the time. Unlike you, BTW, I grew up without faith. Sometimes I think it would be nice to have faith, but it doesn't seem to be anything I'm able to cultivate. So I go by my own experience and by what makes sense to my intellect. Yes, you have said this before. You do appear to have enough faith in the potential of TM to continue with your siddhi practices for a couple hours a day and continue with your working hypothesis. Do you maintain that you have no faith at all? I also go by my own experience and what makes sense to my intellect. I certainly am less trusting of mental experiences than many here are because I know well how the mind can fool you and how minds want to make patterns out of nothing. That said, I have had wonderful mental experiences in my life, when running, swimming, hiking, listening to music, when birthing my son, when holding my grandchildren, while accomplishing difficult tasks. I can feel one with the universe, for lack of a better way to put it. But that doesn't mean to me that I am more than what I am, flesh and blood, with a finite life. But what a wonderful life it is. I agree that cultivating faith is next to impossible, it is or isn't there. But faith occurs in little ways all the time. We all have our little rationalizations which are a kind of faith. We also need some faith that what happens next will not be totally random. After all, deductive reasoning often is effective and you can't always be looking for black swans over your shoulder. But I digress. Despite my lack of experience of faith, though, I don't look at those who do have it and assume they're just hysterical. Rather, I assume they are capable of having an experience for which, for whatever reason, I'm not wired. There are enough other things in my life that give me satisfaction that I don't miss it. We have no meeting of the minds here. I never called people with faith hysterical. I was merely refering to my experience with the siddhis. Have
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Unlike you, BTW, I grew up without faith. Sometimes I think it would be nice to have faith, but it doesn't seem to be anything I'm able to cultivate. So I go by my own experience and by what makes sense to my intellect. Yes, you have said this before. You do appear to have enough faith in the potential of TM to continue with your siddhi practices for a couple hours a day and continue with your working hypothesis. Do you maintain that you have no faith at all? I believe I've also said before that I find the program rewarding to do, both at the time I'm doing it and in my daily life. That's more than enough for me to continue with it. Whatever happens beyond that, happens. snip I agree that cultivating faith is next to impossible, it is or isn't there. But faith occurs in little ways all the time. We all have our little rationalizations which are a kind of faith. Yes, we have faith that the sun will rise every day. But that, of course, isn't what I was talking about. Despite my lack of experience of faith, though, I don't look at those who do have it and assume they're just hysterical. Rather, I assume they are capable of having an experience for which, for whatever reason, I'm not wired. There are enough other things in my life that give me satisfaction that I don't miss it. We have no meeting of the minds here. Big surprise. I never called people with faith hysterical. It's called an analogy. I was merely refering to my experience with the siddhis. Have you have been with people grunting, barking, shouting, and twitching while doing yogic flying? Sure, in the beginning, when the folks in my class had just learned. Actually there was more laughter than anything else. If you had had the experiences they were having, chances are your body would have had the same response. There's a close parallel to a much more common experience, BTW, which I suspect you've had, or I hope you've had, during which there's a tendency to make noises. That's not all there is to the yogic flying experience by any means, but it's one component of it. My opinion is that it is not a spiritual experience but a mental experience based upon a number of factors, including group hysteria. This is a different issue than faith. It is about my impressions of what was going on at a course. Of course, my impression can be wrong but as I said above, I have found no reason change my conclusions. I did my due diligence. The only due diligence you could possibly do in the case of yogic flying would be to become the person whose experience you want to evaluate. You may have a view of what spiritual experience is that's too limited. In any case, you can't possibly know what the experience is like unless you've had it. It's very easy to dismiss experiences you haven't had on the grounds that the mind can fool you and make patterns out of nothing. But it's not very intellectually honest. In fact, it sounds a lot as though that conclusion is your mind making a pattern that you're more comfortable with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip After 15 years of being stalked by her, You know, if I were going to post a rant alleging that somebody I didn't like suffered from an exaggerated sense of self-importance and was constantly trying to micro-manage their image, and I decided to start out with a blatant lie, I probably would have the good sense not to pick a lie that made me look like *I* had an exaggerated sense of self-importance and was trying to micro-manage my own image. Especially if there was an overwhelming amount of evidence already that I had these traits (and was known for lying as well).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: I found the same dissatisfaction with the TM answers. Time has led to even more dissatisfaction because the pudding had no proof. Just sitting and meditating did not do it for me. The switch was off. My aha moment at the siddhis course was instrumental, when I knew (subjectively of course) deep inside that I did not believe and people were feeding off of each other's hysteria. The siddhis ended TM for me. Maybe this is why I say that you cannot separate simple TM from the rest. After all, it is all one big theory about how consciousness works. I would say live and let live (like I do with Christianity, etc.) but the cult of TM has effected my life and harmed my relationships. So I get testy when I hear that TM is so wonderful. Especially when I hear it is so wonderful for relationships with others and will make a peaceful world. It was not wonderful for my relationships and some of the most irritable people I know are meditators. This is not science, this is my experience and it effects how I feel about TM. Didn't MMY say trust your experience? I am. Trusting your experience is fine. Having an aha moment in which you know you don't believe is fine. What's *not* fine, IMHO, is including in that aha moment of knowledge about your own lack of belief the knowledge that other people are feeding off of each other's hysteria. That's just a way to make yourself feel better about your inability to have good results. We don't know why some people get results and some don't. But that some people don't get results does *not* automatically mean that all the others aren't really getting results either. Sometimes life just ain't fair. Sometimes it's really, really complicated and ambiguous and contradictory, and we can't sort it out into neat little piles. Sometimes it's more like quantum mechanics than Newtonian mechanics. (That's an *analogy*, not an equivalence.) And we're stuck with it. Unlike you, BTW, I grew up without faith. Sometimes I think it would be nice to have faith, but it doesn't seem to be anything I'm able to cultivate. So I go by my own experience and by what makes sense to my intellect. Despite my lack of experience of faith, though, I don't look at those who do have it and assume they're just hysterical. Rather, I assume they are capable of having an experience for which, for whatever reason, I'm not wired. There are enough other things in my life that give me satisfaction that I don't miss it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: TM is a delicate practice of innocence. If doubt festers about one's practice, a bottomless pit of questions escalates anger and destroys innocence. Raunchy, I have to leap in here, *not* to give you a hard time or squish you like a bug, but to hopefully remind you of some- thing. Your two sentences above WERE TAUGHT TO YOU. By Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and by the TMO. They are NOT standard in all forms of meditation and self discovery. In many forms of meditative practice and self discovery, doubt is seen as an integral and very valuable part of that discovery. Doubt, rather than being demonized as it was above, is not only not stifled, but encouraged. The thinking seems to be, If our world view does not hold up in the face of doubt, then there is something wrong with our world view. We should be open to changing that. That -- essentially -- is what the Dalai Lama said when he said that if the findings of modern science conflict with the teachings of Buddhism, it's *Buddhism* that has to change. Compare and contrast to the teachings you parroted above. A question masks an irritation, an itch you just can't scratch. And? Raunchy, what you are echoing above is Maharishi's phrase, Every question is a perfect opportunity for the answer we have already prepared. That's not how knowledge or even questions and answers are handled everywhere in the smorgasbord of self discovery. There are some forms of self discovery that do not feel compelled to provide an answer that they have already prepared for every question, and expect it to *silence the questioner*. Above you are demonizing the person who has...uh... questions. You are portraying them as flawed, angry, *damaged*, as opposed to the person who just accepts the little he or she has been told and is content with it. Or, the person who -- when he or she *does* ask a question -- is content with the first answer, and drops the question. Raunchy, I'm going into this in some depth because you really don't seem to understand that your whole post was about presenting a case for dropping the question. It was an apologia for STFU. I'm not against a doubter asking questions, ask away. I'm just pointing out the consequences of frustrating yourself with endless questions that will never satisfy no matter how many questions you have. At some point, you just have to pack it in and conclude, Yep, TM is not as complicated as I was trying to make it, or TM sucks, I quit. Choosing the latter was never an option for me. I like TM so I've made peace with TM and the TMO instead of making myself crazy with complaints. Lord knows, I've had plenty of complaints about the TMO for many years, but it has never interfered with my love for the practice. I've reconciled my itch and I think that's a good thing. If folks still have an itch, well, it can't be that comfortable, just saying. Maharishi often invited questions. I never had a chance to ask him anything directly, but I do remember driving my SCI teacher, Tom Miller, crazy with questions to the point of detecting, occasionally, a slight sputter of frustration. I love how he put up with me but it never entered my mind that I should quit TM because I wasn't satisfied with his answers. Many questions about one's practice are predictable. What should I do, if I don't have time to meditate? Answer: Even the busy business man finds time to meditate. He goes to the bank so he can enjoy the marketplace. Or, Water the root to enjoy the fruit. Maharishi taught pat answers designed to encourage the meditator to continue practice. I don't see anything wrong with that. I learned the answers to as many questions as I could to help people enjoy an innocent practice. I don't imagine I could have thought up the answers to meditator questions on my own. I trusted Maharishi for that and I'm glad I did. I probably helped many people to stay innocent in their practice by being an innocent parrot. I remember Maharishi saying initiators were like loud speakers of TM. Since I'm not interested in being a guru of a meditation technique I dreamed up, I'm content I don't have to make shit up to answer a question simple question about TM. If someone wants to get into a mind fuck about it, well, have at it. Some folks are just naturally itchier than others are. They can't help it. And that makes them lower or less than those of us who have accepted whatever we were told *without* question? You're not itchy. You're not irritable. :-) I wonder if irritable folks could just get past those pesky
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Apr 1, 2009, at 8:28 PM, satvadude108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:42 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. My personal fave, (paraphrased): We don't have to tell the kids what the underpinnings are, if people like John Knapp would just keep their mouths shut. Now there's a raving endorsement for the integrity of the teaching. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. Not me, I still find it endlessly entertaining. Kinda tells you where the person who frequently says I *never* lie. sets the bar on her personal honesty. You might want to ask Sal about her personal honesty. Her paraphrase above, for example, is a knowing lie. I disagree. Sal did not knowingly lie. Aren't Judy's personal powers of mind-reading just mind-blowing? Frankly I think my little synopsis of her diatribes against TMO criticism is pretty accurate. Sal Your post was Zen like in it its accurate concise summation. You drew one arrow and put it right thru the bulleye. She knew what she was exposed doing and responded the in only way she knows. Her teat was in a wringer so she lashed out and attacked. I'm surprised she didn't twist it into your making a death threat. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:42 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. My personal fave, (paraphrased): We don't have to tell the kids what the underpinnings are, if people like John Knapp would just keep their mouths shut. Now there's a raving endorsement for the integrity of the teaching. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. Not me, I still find it endlessly entertaining. Kinda tells you where the person who frequently says I *never* lie. sets the bar on her personal honesty. Even do.rflex, who had his nose up her butt so long he developed ring around the collar, has acknowledged how completely dishonest this position is regarding the non-religiousity of teaching TM in schools. I've wondered for some time if the vehement argument she makes was based on delusion or dishonesty. It is probably both. In all compassion -- really -- I think that Judy's stance is as old as the con game and as understandable. It's how the con game WORKS, and why it's *always* worked. PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONNED DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT, TO THEMSELVES, OR TO ANYONE ELSE. The more self-importance the conned person has, the more vehemently they resist admit- ting that they have been conned. They will become apologists for the con men, will defend them the way that people *who were conned by Je-Ru* defended him, and will go to their graves doing so, because their sense of self-importance is stronger than their sense of integrity and honesty. For such people, it is better to be thought a fool than to admit to having been one. Judy MUST know how ridiculous her stance in all of this makes her look. But she continues that stance nonetheless. I think that my explanation is the only one that fits her behavior. Have you EVER known Judy Stein to admit to having been WRONG, except to a tiny fact or typo? I haven't, either. None of us have. Do you think that a person with that level of self-importance is going to admit to having been WRONG about the very nature of the practice she has been doing every day for 30+ years? Not gonna happen... Once again I must bow to your wisdom and the great compassion you show here. If I had been stalked by her as long as you, I surely would not be capable of the level of equanimity you display. You must practice Metta and send lovingkindness to her daily. I have to admit that it's more of an idealistic bashing-one's-head-against- a-brick-wall compassion than a all-God's- creatures-are-one-and-deserve-compassion compassion, but Yes, there is some com- passion involved in my stance with Judy. After 15 years of being stalked by her, for (in my estimation) 75% petty ego reasons and 25% dyed-in-the-wool cultist reasons, I would be an idiot to believe that she is capable of change, and of rational thought. Yet I persist in believing that. It's the balance of ego vs. cult thinking that makes me think that way. If she were a pure cultist, there would be no hope for her. But she isn't. What other people think of her is MUCH more important to her than her own supposed principles. That's the real common denominator of all of her posts -- an attempt to control and spin her own words and actions to micro- manage her own image, and to try to make others hold the same image of her that she does. It's MUCH more an ego thang than it is a cult thang. As compared to, say, Nabby, for whom it is definitely a cult thang. He's been crazy for so long that he doesn't CARE any more that he is perceived as crazy. Judy CARES. Nothing gets her bent out of shape more than a new person on this forum realizing that she's crazy. When that happens she goes...uh...a little more crazy trying to spin it and defend the image she's trying to project. This cycle, according to Buddhism, is the beginning of wisdom. It's a samsara cycle, a blind repeating of the same actions over and over and over in an attempt to win something that cannot be won, producing the *same* non-desired results with each cycle. Sooner or later, according to Buddhist thought, the person caught in the cycle will catch on and end it. The fact that they CAN end it is one of the lynchpins of Buddhist thought; it
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:42 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. My personal fave, (paraphrased): We don't have to tell the kids what the underpinnings are, if people like John Knapp would just keep their mouths shut. Now there's a raving endorsement for the integrity of the teaching. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. Not me, I still find it endlessly entertaining. Kinda tells you where the person who frequently says I *never* lie. sets the bar on her personal honesty. Even do.rflex, who had his nose up her butt so long he developed ring around the collar, has acknowledged how completely dishonest this position is regarding the non-religiousity of teaching TM in schools. I've wondered for some time if the vehement argument she makes was based on delusion or dishonesty. It is probably both. In all compassion -- really -- I think that Judy's stance is as old as the con game and as understandable. It's how the con game WORKS, and why it's *always* worked. PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONNED DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT, TO THEMSELVES, OR TO ANYONE ELSE. The more self-importance the conned person has, the more vehemently they resist admit- ting that they have been conned. They will become apologists for the con men, will defend them the way that people *who were conned by Je-Ru* defended him, and will go to their graves doing so, because their sense of self-importance is stronger than their sense of integrity and honesty. For such people, it is better to be thought a fool than to admit to having been one. Judy MUST know how ridiculous her stance in all of this makes her look. But she continues that stance nonetheless. I think that my explanation is the only one that fits her behavior. Have you EVER known Judy Stein to admit to having been WRONG, except to a tiny fact or typo? I haven't, either. None of us have. Do you think that a person with that level of self-importance is going to admit to having been WRONG about the very nature of the practice she has been doing every day for 30+ years? Not gonna happen... Once again I must bow to your wisdom and the great compassion you show here. If I had been stalked by her as long as you, I surely would not be capable of the level of equanimity you display. You must practice Metta and send lovingkindness to her daily.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willy...@... wrote: It's almost pure pandering and trolling, as far as I can tell. The lying these two get away with is just outrageous - they should be caled on it, but the others here, except for Judy, are too scared to speak up, I guess. Sal and Turq, the town liars. satvadude108 wrote: Boy, you sure are on a roll. Yeah on a troll, not a 'roll', so why not just shut your pie hole if you don't have anything to contribute to the conversation? Do you often admit to being a troll? It's good you are at peace with yourself about that. Most aren't. The long term effects of sillycybin abuse is often not a pretty sight Willy. Clean it up dude. Get a checking, have a chicken sandwich, get laid, GFY, and there might be hope. Yeah, you've been in and out of religious cults for most of your adult life, Oh really? Do tell I suppose being an altar boy back in 1966 kinda did get me going down Kool Aid drinkin' path. That was solved when they booted me for tryin' to get a look up Marie Pitzmyer's skirt. She was an early bloomer. sigh Those plaid were the bomb dude. but I'm the 'sillycybin' abuser. Good one! As far as I can tell, most of the FFL informants are self-condemned. They were all Marshy's enablers, else they're just trolling here. One thing is fer sure, someone is lying about the TMO and TM practice and I think I know who they are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:42 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. My personal fave, (paraphrased): We don't have to tell the kids what the underpinnings are, if people like John Knapp would just keep their mouths shut. Now there's a raving endorsement for the integrity of the teaching. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. Not me, I still find it endlessly entertaining. Kinda tells you where the person who frequently says I *never* lie. sets the bar on her personal honesty. You might want to ask Sal about her personal honesty. Her paraphrase above, for example, is a knowing lie. I disagree. Sal did not knowingly lie. Even do.rflex, who had his nose up her butt so long he developed ring around the collar, has acknowledged how completely dishonest this position is regarding the non-religiousity of teaching TM in schools. Oh, you've got the wrong word there. For something to be acknowledged, it has to be a fact. What John did was state his *opinion* about the position. Fail. Again. See the difference? I've wondered for some time if the vehement argument she makes was based on delusion or dishonesty. It is probably both. I don't really think people who lack the guts to engage someone on a topic of disagreement are in a position to do such wondering in public. Ahh. The junkyard dog strains at her tether and barks at the cyclone fence that is my Firefox browser. There is no engage with you. Even Curtis, displaying an extraordinarily high level of honesty, curiosity, and patience is unable to sustain dialogue with you without being assailed by insults. I don't have his chops for being nice to you as I find you quite distasteful and nasty. http://snipurl.com/f1i8q No soup for you! But what's particularly interesting is that here we have yet another example of a True Non-Believer Are you referring to me or Sal? Or perhaps you are lapsing more lazily than usual into one of your twisted distortions. accusing a TM supporter of dishonesty because her opinion disagrees with theirs--precisely what the True Non-Believers are constantly accusing the TM supporters, with great scorn, of doing to them. Fascinating. They're utterly oblivious to the irony (or we could just call it hypocrisy).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 no_re...@... wrote: Once again I must bow to your wisdom and the great compassion you show here. If I had been stalked by her as long as you, I surely would not be capable of the level of equanimity you display. You must practice Metta and send lovingkindness to her daily. LOL! This is the funniest damn thing I've read on FFLife! You're head is so far up Barry's ass (not that there's anything wrong with that) you'll never see daylight. Enjoy the view.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 no_reply@ wrote: Once again I must bow to your wisdom and the great compassion you show here. If I had been stalked by her as long as you, I surely would not be capable of the level of equanimity you display. You must practice Metta and send lovingkindness to her daily. LOL! This is the funniest damn thing I've read on FFLife! It wasn't *that* funny, but I'm glad you liked it. ;-) Laughing is necessary for a long life Raunchy. May your life span be interminable.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
On Apr 1, 2009, at 8:28 PM, satvadude108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:42 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. My personal fave, (paraphrased): We don't have to tell the kids what the underpinnings are, if people like John Knapp would just keep their mouths shut. Now there's a raving endorsement for the integrity of the teaching. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. Not me, I still find it endlessly entertaining. Kinda tells you where the person who frequently says I *never* lie. sets the bar on her personal honesty. You might want to ask Sal about her personal honesty. Her paraphrase above, for example, is a knowing lie. I disagree. Sal did not knowingly lie. Aren't Judy's personal powers of mind-reading just mind-blowing? Frankly I think my little synopsis of her diatribes against TMO criticism is pretty accurate. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
raunchydog wrote: Right you are. There's a lot of room for a teacher to give a creative response to a meditator's question and remain within the framework of Maharishi's teachings. On TTC, 6 months in France, as I listened to Maharishi everyday, I was always amazed he could find so many ways to talk about TM. I thought of it as guilding the lily, refining layers of knowledge already perfect. Maharishi's knowledge became such a part of me, that when a meditator asked a question, I could feel myself sink into a quiet place in my heart and Maharishi words would be there, waiting and available. Call it brainwashing, whatever, but I can assure you it was truly a joy to effortlessly express his thoughts through my individuality. It was a very profound experience. I haven't taught anyone in many years. Thinking about it makes me miss it. Oooph! Is it just me or is the above more than a little bit creepy? Maharishi was very much against channeling, right? Well, a joy to effortlessly express his thoughts through my individuality seems to be the very definition of channeling. If you owned Maharishi's concepts, they would be YOUR THOUGHTS when they arose in your mind. Otherwise, you're just a parrot trying to get a cracker for duplicating sounds that have no real meaning to you. You heart place that you sink into may be a fun little heaven to visit, but don't confuse Maharishi's vibe and charisma and try to make them into an outer manifestation of your inner being. The outer guru is only there to symbolize the inner guru -- not to BE the inner guru. Maharishi can never live your life for you -- if you think so, then you're doing the what would Jesus do thingie. You've got to own the concepts, and that can only come from handling them a thousand times until they become mere playthings to you. I would have to put my money on betting that almost anyone who ever started TM did so based on intuition -- not on the stellar clarity of the TM teacher about the functions of consciousness. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip So, you might ask, what WOULD I support as a suitable use of David Lynch's money, to achieve his laudable goal of making meditation more available to students? 1. Open the program to *all* popular forms of meditation, not just TM. If a school agrees to the program, they cannot be agreeing to fund only the TM movement. For the record, the schools ain't funding the TM movement, Lynch is. 2. The quiet time periods are open to anyone practicing any form of meditation or contemplation. The only requirement is that you sit quietly and do not bother the other students for the allotted period of time. 3. No on-campus instruction. Lynch's fund can pay for TM instruction, but somewhere else, not on campus. If his fund doesn't want to pay for instruction in some other form of meditation, that is understandable. Perhaps those other forms of meditation will develop similar programs to subsidize teaching their form of meditation, or teach it for free. Hell, many of them *already* teach for free. From the Lynch Foundation Web site (I mentioned this in a post a week or so ago, but apparently Barry missed it): The David Lynch Foundation provides funding for schools that offer children in grades 6 through 12 the opportunity to learn the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program as part of a whole school, twice-daily, morning and afternoon, Quiet Time session. Students who do not wish to learn the TM program are offered an alternative Quiet Time activity, which is not funded by the David Lynch Foundation. It's not clear what that alternative activity will be, what the options are, or who decides, but it seems to be along the same general lines as what Barry proposes. I'd fully support all Barry's other provisions as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: snip My personal fave, (paraphrased): We don't have to tell the kids what the underpinnings are, if people like John Knapp would just keep their mouths shut. Wow, that's some paraphrase. But Sal inadvertently makes a good point while trying to make me appear to be a Bad Person. It's the *underpinnings* of the basic TM course that have the appearance of a religion, *not the substance of the course*. Which was *my* point: the basic TM course-- what would be taught to Lynch's kids--doesn't have anything in it that's *intrinsically* religious. The so-called religious component rests entirely with what TM teachers think about it (if they even do--Barry apparently did not, at least at first).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:42 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. My personal fave, (paraphrased): We don't have to tell the kids what the underpinnings are, if people like John Knapp would just keep their mouths shut. Now there's a raving endorsement for the integrity of the teaching. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. Not me, I still find it endlessly entertaining. Kinda tells you where the person who frequently says I *never* lie. sets the bar on her personal honesty. You might want to ask Sal about her personal honesty. Her paraphrase above, for example, is a knowing lie. Even do.rflex, who had his nose up her butt so long he developed ring around the collar, has acknowledged how completely dishonest this position is regarding the non-religiousity of teaching TM in schools. Oh, you've got the wrong word there. For something to be acknowledged, it has to be a fact. What John did was state his *opinion* about the position. See the difference? I've wondered for some time if the vehement argument she makes was based on delusion or dishonesty. It is probably both. I don't really think people who lack the guts to engage someone on a topic of disagreement are in a position to do such wondering in public. But what's particularly interesting is that here we have yet another example of a True Non-Believer accusing a TM supporter of dishonesty because her opinion disagrees with theirs--precisely what the True Non-Believers are constantly accusing the TM supporters, with great scorn, of doing to them. Fascinating. They're utterly oblivious to the irony (or we could just call it hypocrisy).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: snip My personal fave, (paraphrased): We don't have to tell the kids what the underpinnings are, if people like John Knapp would just keep their mouths shut. Wow, that's some paraphrase. But Sal inadvertently makes a good point while trying to make me appear to be a Bad Person. It's the *underpinnings* of the basic TM course that have the appearance of a religion, *not the substance of the course*. Which was *my* point: the basic TM course-- what would be taught to Lynch's kids--doesn't have anything in it that's *intrinsically* religious. The so-called religious component rests entirely with what TM teachers think about it (if they even do--Barry apparently did not, at least at first). TM is a delicate practice of innocence. If doubt festers about one's practice, a bottomless pit of questions escalates anger and destroys innocence. A question masks an irritation, an itch you just can't scratch. Some folks are just naturally itchier than others are. They can't help it. I wonder if irritable folks could just get past those pesky questions long enough to do enough TM regularly, they just might be a little less crabby about TM. Maybe not, it didn't seem to work out that way for Edg. Maharishi did everything he could to answer questions for the sake of innocent practice. For a few, no matter what he said, it wasn't going to be good enough. It's interesting that as long as Barry blithely meditated for self-discovery...no problem...TM was just fine by him. Too bad, he became a teacher and he let cognitive dissonance bamboozled his innocence. Although I'm sure he probably sees it as a victory over evil. Marooned on an island and never knowing anything about TM except innocent practice, would Barry still practice TM or would he have found a way to talk himself out of it, hankering to attend church regularly and ask God's forgiveness him for practicing Hinduism? I guess you just can't do much about karma. Peace, Brother Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: snip TM is a delicate practice of innocence. If doubt festers about one's practice, a bottomless pit of questions escalates anger and destroys innocence. Questions lead to anger? Not for me, it leads to answers or at least the joy of delineating the areas I am lacking knowledge. As far as the need for innocence in TM goes, I might be a poster child for being one of the least innocent people here concerning the practice, but in my experience, my TM practice is the same as it ever was when I was innocent about the whole thing. I believe that this is another area of Maharishi where he was being self-serving by trying to instill a phobia about questioning he authority. It is a pretty common tactic among group leaders to shut people up. A question masks an irritation, an itch you just can't scratch. I love you like a sista Raunchy but this is blatant BS! Where did you get such a negitive view of being curious? (Oh, yeah I know!) Some folks are just naturally itchier than others are. They can't help it. I wonder if irritable folks Whoa there Nelly! Equating people who have questions with being irritable is slippery at best and a bit sinister at worst. Think about the implications of this equation. It is a blatant thought stopper and unworthy of your otherwise lively curious mind. could just get past those pesky questions long enough to do enough TM regularly, they just might be a little less crabby about TM. Maybe not, it didn't seem to work out that way for Edg. The intellectual questions about Maharishi's teaching that I have have nothing to do with the pejorative crabby. So no practice is needed to reduce crabbiness. ( I know you were directing this towards Edg who could be characterized as being crabby in some post in general, but I am defending him in the specific case of his questions about Maharishi's teaching which have their own intellectual legitimacy outside any mood.) Maharishi did everything he could to answer questions for the sake of innocent practice. Actually he did a lot to avoid questions for the sake of innocent practice. Another phrase for innocent might be poorly informed. For a few, no matter what he said, it wasn't going to be good enough. Considering the fact that only a few ever continued his practice beyond their first year you may want to rephrase that No matter how much he said, it was only good enough for a few. I'm sure you get my larger point here Raunchy. I am wary of people who set up conditions to limit my legitimate desire to ask questions and know more about any aspect of my life. You might be interested in the difference between first degree and second degree naivete. I'm a fan of the latter. It's interesting that as long as Barry blithely meditated for self-discovery...no problem...TM was just fine by him. Too bad, he became a teacher and he let cognitive dissonance bamboozled his innocence. Although I'm sure he probably sees it as a victory over evil. Marooned on an island and never knowing anything about TM except innocent practice, would Barry still practice TM or would he have found a way to talk himself out of it, hankering to attend church regularly and ask God's forgiveness him for practicing Hinduism? I guess you just can't do much about karma. Peace, Brother Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: TM is a delicate practice of innocence. If doubt festers about one's practice, a bottomless pit of questions escalates anger and destroys innocence. Raunchy, I have to leap in here, *not* to give you a hard time or squish you like a bug, but to hopefully remind you of some- thing. Your two sentences above WERE TAUGHT TO YOU. By Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and by the TMO. They are NOT standard in all forms of meditation and self discovery. In many forms of meditative practice and self discovery, doubt is seen as an integral and very valuable part of that discovery. Doubt, rather than being demonized as it was above, is not only not stifled, but encouraged. The thinking seems to be, If our world view does not hold up in the face of doubt, then there is something wrong with our world view. We should be open to changing that. That -- essentially -- is what the Dalai Lama said when he said that if the findings of modern science conflict with the teachings of Buddhism, it's *Buddhism* that has to change. Compare and contrast to the teachings you parroted above. A question masks an irritation, an itch you just can't scratch. And? Raunchy, what you are echoing above is Maharishi's phrase, Every question is a perfect opportunity for the answer we have already prepared. That's not how knowledge or even questions and answers are handled everywhere in the smorgasbord of self discovery. There are some forms of self discovery that do not feel compelled to provide an answer that they have already prepared for every question, and expect it to *silence the questioner*. Above you are demonizing the person who has...uh... questions. You are portraying them as flawed, angry, *damaged*, as opposed to the person who just accepts the little he or she has been told and is content with it. Or, the person who -- when he or she *does* ask a question -- is content with the first answer, and drops the question. Raunchy, I'm going into this in some depth because you really don't seem to understand that your whole post was about presenting a case for dropping the question. It was an apologia for STFU. Some folks are just naturally itchier than others are. They can't help it. And that makes them lower or less than those of us who have accepted whatever we were told *without* question? You're not itchy. You're not irritable. :-) I wonder if irritable folks could just get past those pesky questions long enough to do enough TM regularly, they just might be a little less crabby about TM. Maybe not, it didn't seem to work out that way for Edg. It didn't seem to work out that way for me, either. Or is fourteen years not enough time to do TM regularly? Raunchy, LOOK AROUND. You have been presented with statistics on this forum suggesting that not only do MOST people give up on TM, up to 90% of those learning give up on TM. Doncha think a few of them might still be around if someone had treated their questions as if those questions were valid and valuable, and not Off The Program and indicators of irritation? Maharishi did everything he could to answer questions for the sake of innocent practice. Maharishi did everything he could to provide the answers he had already prepared. For a few, no matter what he said, it wasn't going to be good enough. Why was it good enough for YOU? What made you not *only* STFU and stop asking questions, but get on a soapbox to demonize those who didn't? It's interesting that as long as Barry blithely meditated for self-discovery...no problem...TM was just fine by him. Too bad, he became a teacher and he let cognitive dissonance bamboozled his innocence. Although I'm sure he probably sees it as a victory over evil. No, he sees it as never having done what you did and stopped asking questions. Marooned on an island and never knowing anything about TM except innocent practice, would Barry still practice TM... Absolutely not. There would not have been enough payoff in it for me to continue practicing it. ...or would he have found a way to talk himself out of it, hankering to attend church regularly and ask God's forgiveness him for practicing Hinduism? Where is Judy with her screech about Fantasy! when you need her? :-) Raunchy, even YOU know how off the mark that is as a demonization of me. I guess you just can't do much about karma. Peace, Brother Barry. And to you, Raunchy. I really *DO* understand (because I've been there) that you really *DO* believe that doubt is a Bad Thing. And I really *DO* understand (because again I've been there) that you really *DO* believe that that telling doubters to STFU is a favor. But there is a karma in that, too. And the TMO is reaping it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip TM is a delicate practice of innocence. If doubt festers about one's practice, a bottomless pit of questions escalates anger and destroys innocence. Questions lead to anger? Not for me, it leads to answers or at least the joy of delineating the areas I am lacking knowledge. As far as the need for innocence in TM goes, I might be a poster child for being one of the least innocent people here concerning the practice, but in my experience, my TM practice is the same as it ever was when I was innocent about the whole thing. I believe that this is another area of Maharishi where he was being self-serving by trying to instill a phobia about questioning he authority. It is a pretty common tactic among group leaders to shut people up. A question masks an irritation, an itch you just can't scratch. I love you like a sista Raunchy but this is blatant BS! Where did you get such a negitive view of being curious? (Oh, yeah I know!) Some folks are just naturally itchier than others are. They can't help it. I wonder if irritable folks Whoa there Nelly! Equating people who have questions with being irritable is slippery at best and a bit sinister at worst. Think about the implications of this equation. It is a blatant thought stopper and unworthy of your otherwise lively curious mind. could just get past those pesky questions long enough to do enough TM regularly, they just might be a little less crabby about TM. Maybe not, it didn't seem to work out that way for Edg. The intellectual questions about Maharishi's teaching that I have have nothing to do with the pejorative crabby. So no practice is needed to reduce crabbiness. ( I know you were directing this towards Edg who could be characterized as being crabby in some post in general, but I am defending him in the specific case of his questions about Maharishi's teaching which have their own intellectual legitimacy outside any mood.) I don't have any problem with intellectual curiosity. Yours is certainly well developed and I appreciate you for that. But did you ever have to deal with a child refusing to let go of, But WHY Mommy? Finally Mommy says, Well, just because I said so. Mommy absorbed the child's escalating irritation instead of acknowledging the reason for badgering. What's bothering you, honey? It's usually diaper itch...every time. Maharishi did everything he could to answer questions for the sake of innocent practice. Actually he did a lot to avoid questions for the sake of innocent practice. Another phrase for innocent might be poorly informed. For a few, no matter what he said, it wasn't going to be good enough. Considering the fact that only a few ever continued his practice beyond their first year you may want to rephrase that No matter how much he said, it was only good enough for a few. I'm sure you get my larger point here Raunchy. I am wary of people who set up conditions to limit my legitimate desire to ask questions and know more about any aspect of my life. You might be interested in the difference between first degree and second degree naivete. I'm a fan of the latter. It's interesting that as long as Barry blithely meditated for self-discovery...no problem...TM was just fine by him. Too bad, he became a teacher and he let cognitive dissonance bamboozled his innocence. Although I'm sure he probably sees it as a victory over evil. Marooned on an island and never knowing anything about TM except innocent practice, would Barry still practice TM or would he have found a way to talk himself out of it, hankering to attend church regularly and ask God's forgiveness him for practicing Hinduism? I guess you just can't do much about karma. Peace, Brother Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip In all compassion -- really -- I think that Judy's stance is as old as the con game and as understandable. It's how the con game WORKS, and why it's *always* worked. PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONNED DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT, TO THEMSELVES, OR TO ANYONE ELSE. The more self-importance the conned person has, the more vehemently they resist admit- ting that they have been conned. They will become apologists for the con men, will defend them the way that people *who were conned by Je-Ru* defended him, and will go to their graves doing so, because their sense of self-importance is stronger than their sense of integrity and honesty. For such people, it is better to be thought a fool than to admit to having been one. Judy MUST know how ridiculous her stance in all of this makes her look. But she continues that stance nonetheless. I think that my explanation is the only one that fits her behavior. That's right, it's the only possible explanation. Because we know that there has never been *anybody* who has stuck to their guns in the face of mockery from others unless he or she was WRONG and merely suffering from an exaggerated sense of his/her own self-importance. It just never happens. If other people think the person looks ridiculous for holding a particular stance, it can ONLY be because that person's stance is WRONG, even if it's just a matter of opinion. And the only *possible* reason a person doesn't ADMIT to being wrong when others disagree with him or her is that s/he doesn't have the integrity to acknowledge s/he's been conned. It has never, EVER, in the entire history of the human race, been the case that a person whose views were considered ridiculous by others *has not been WRONG*. It has never, EVER been the case that those cheerleading the ridicule were playing a con game of their own. Whose opinion on an issue is WRONG, after all, is determined *by majority vote*, so there's no room for uncertainty, and certainly no need to examine arguments in favor of anything the majority disagrees with. That would be a waste of time, because the majority view is correct simply by virtue of being the majority view. Have you EVER known Judy Stein to admit to having been WRONG, except to a tiny fact or typo? I haven't, either. None of us have. Do you think that a person with that level of self-importance is going to admit to having been WRONG about the very nature of the practice she has been doing every day for 30+ years? - I do not admit the possibility that any point of view can be 'right.' What I would acknowledge is that your point of view is just as valid as mine. --Barry Wright, less than an hour ago - Barry's logic here is unassailable. It's not necessary for him or anyone else to *demonstrate* I've been wrong about anything substantial by engaging me in debate. Merely the fact that I haven't *admitted* to being wrong means not only that I *must* have been wrong about whatever it is that Barry doesn't agree with, but that there's something wrong with *me*. Anybody here remember any of Barry's endless diatribes about how no opinion is better than any other opinion? Anybody remember him explaining to Ruth that not even *science* is to be considered authoritative? Anybody remember his complaints about TBs claiming that there's something WRONG with TM critics because they don't agree with the TBs? Jeez, talk about a con game! And most here will happily go along with it, because it means they don't have to examine their own views, don't have to worry about the possibility that there are any valid objections to those views. I mean, goodness gracious, doing so would mean taking the risk of being *ridiculed*. And that would be a fate worse than death.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: TM is a delicate practice of innocence. If doubt festers about one's practice, a bottomless pit of questions escalates anger and destroys innocence. Raunchy, I have to leap in here, *not* to give you a hard time or squish you like a bug, but to hopefully remind you of some- thing. Your two sentences above WERE TAUGHT TO YOU. By Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and by the TMO. They are NOT standard in all forms of meditation and self discovery. In many forms of meditative practice and self discovery, doubt is seen as an integral and very valuable part of that discovery. Doubt, rather than being demonized as it was above, is not only not stifled, but encouraged. The thinking seems to be, If our world view does not hold up in the face of doubt, then there is something wrong with our world view. We should be open to changing that. That -- essentially -- is what the Dalai Lama said when he said that if the findings of modern science conflict with the teachings of Buddhism, it's *Buddhism* that has to change. Compare and contrast to the teachings you parroted above. A question masks an irritation, an itch you just can't scratch. And? Raunchy, what you are echoing above is Maharishi's phrase, Every question is a perfect opportunity for the answer we have already prepared. That's not how knowledge or even questions and answers are handled everywhere in the smorgasbord of self discovery. There are some forms of self discovery that do not feel compelled to provide an answer that they have already prepared for every question, and expect it to *silence the questioner*. Above you are demonizing the person who has...uh... questions. You are portraying them as flawed, angry, *damaged*, as opposed to the person who just accepts the little he or she has been told and is content with it. Or, the person who -- when he or she *does* ask a question -- is content with the first answer, and drops the question. Raunchy, I'm going into this in some depth because you really don't seem to understand that your whole post was about presenting a case for dropping the question. It was an apologia for STFU. I'm not against a doubter asking questions, ask away. I'm just pointing out the consequences of frustrating yourself with endless questions that will never satisfy no matter how many questions you have. At some point, you just have to pack it in and conclude, Yep, TM is not as complicated as I was trying to make it, or TM sucks, I quit. Choosing the latter was never an option for me. I like TM so I've made peace with TM and the TMO instead of making myself crazy with complaints. Lord knows, I've had plenty of complaints about the TMO for many years, but it has never interfered with my love for the practice. I've reconciled my itch and I think that's a good thing. If folks still have an itch, well, it can't be that comfortable, just saying. Maharishi often invited questions. I never had a chance to ask him anything directly, but I do remember driving my SCI teacher, Tom Miller, crazy with questions to the point of detecting, occasionally, a slight sputter of frustration. I love how he put up with me but it never entered my mind that I should quit TM because I wasn't satisfied with his answers. Many questions about one's practice are predictable. What should I do, if I don't have time to meditate? Answer: Even the busy business man finds time to meditate. He goes to the bank so he can enjoy the marketplace. Or, Water the root to enjoy the fruit. Maharishi taught pat answers designed to encourage the meditator to continue practice. I don't see anything wrong with that. I learned the answers to as many questions as I could to help people enjoy an innocent practice. I don't imagine I could have thought up the answers to meditator questions on my own. I trusted Maharishi for that and I'm glad I did. I probably helped many people to stay innocent in their practice by being an innocent parrot. I remember Maharishi saying initiators were like loud speakers of TM. Since I'm not interested in being a guru of a meditation technique I dreamed up, I'm content I don't have to make shit up to answer a question simple question about TM. If someone wants to get into a mind fuck about it, well, have at it. Some folks are just naturally itchier than others are. They can't help it. And that makes them lower or less than those of us who have accepted whatever we were told *without* question? You're not itchy. You're not irritable. :-) I wonder if irritable folks could just get past those pesky questions long enough to do enough TM regularly, they just might be a little less crabby about TM. Maybe not, it didn't seem to work out that way for Edg. It didn't seem to work
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: snip Maharishi often invited questions. I never had a chance to ask him anything directly, but I do remember driving my SCI teacher, Tom Miller, crazy with questions to the point of detecting, occasionally, a slight sputter of frustration. I love how he put up with me but it never entered my mind that I should quit TM because I wasn't satisfied with his answers. I loved residence courses and advanced lectures because of the chance to ask questions, and I asked a zillion of 'em. Some of the answers were satisfying, some weren't. If I wasn't able to pry an answer out of the teacher that made sense to me, I'd ask the same question on the next course or at the next lecture. And often I'd get a better response. With all the yammering about rote answers here, my experience was that the better teachers all had their own spin on how to answer a question, drawing on their own experience and insight and figuring out different ways to explain things. I had the distinct sense that they loved having the opportunity to answer a meaty question that made them think.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Maharishi often invited questions. I never had a chance to ask him anything directly, but I do remember driving my SCI teacher, Tom Miller, crazy with questions to the point of detecting, occasionally, a slight sputter of frustration. I love how he put up with me but it never entered my mind that I should quit TM because I wasn't satisfied with his answers. I loved residence courses and advanced lectures because of the chance to ask questions, and I asked a zillion of 'em. Some of the answers were satisfying, some weren't. If I wasn't able to pry an answer out of the teacher that made sense to me, I'd ask the same question on the next course or at the next lecture. And often I'd get a better response. With all the yammering about rote answers here, my experience was that the better teachers all had their own spin on how to answer a question, drawing on their own experience and insight and figuring out different ways to explain things. I had the distinct sense that they loved having the opportunity to answer a meaty question that made them think. I think they call that the Socratic Method of teaching...where the student primes the teacher, with questioning, until deeper knowledge is revealed... I remember Maharishi saying that it was the questions that would bring out more knowledge... That's my sense of what makes a good teacher, as compared to someone who doesn't know WTF, they are talking 'bout! Sort of like the Bankers on Wall St They are very bad teachers, in everyone's book, except their own. R.G. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Maharishi often invited questions. I never had a chance to ask him anything directly, but I do remember driving my SCI teacher, Tom Miller, crazy with questions to the point of detecting, occasionally, a slight sputter of frustration. I love how he put up with me but it never entered my mind that I should quit TM because I wasn't satisfied with his answers. I loved residence courses and advanced lectures because of the chance to ask questions, and I asked a zillion of 'em. Some of the answers were satisfying, some weren't. If I wasn't able to pry an answer out of the teacher that made sense to me, I'd ask the same question on the next course or at the next lecture. And often I'd get a better response. With all the yammering about rote answers here, my experience was that the better teachers all had their own spin on how to answer a question, drawing on their own experience and insight and figuring out different ways to explain things. I had the distinct sense that they loved having the opportunity to answer a meaty question that made them think. Right you are. There's a lot of room for a teacher to give a creative response to a meditator's question and remain within the framework of Maharishi's teachings. On TTC, 6 months in France, as I listened to Maharishi everyday, I was always amazed he could find so many ways to talk about TM. I thought of it as guilding the lily, refining layers of knowledge already perfect. Maharishi's knowledge became such a part of me, that when a meditator asked a question, I could feel myself sink into a quiet place in my heart and Maharishi words would be there, waiting and available. Call it brainwashing, whatever, but I can assure you it was truly a joy to effortlessly express his thoughts through my individuality. It was a very profound experience. I haven't taught anyone in many years. Thinking about it makes me miss it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:42 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. My personal fave, (paraphrased): We don't have to tell the kids what the underpinnings are, if people like John Knapp would just keep their mouths shut. Now there's a raving endorsement for the integrity of the teaching. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. Not me, I still find it endlessly entertaining. Kinda tells you where the person who frequently says I *never* lie. sets the bar on her personal honesty. Even do.rflex, who had his nose up her butt so long he developed ring around the collar, has acknowledged how completely dishonest this position is regarding the non-religiousity of teaching TM in schools. I've wondered for some time if the vehement argument she makes was based on delusion or dishonesty. It is probably both. In all compassion -- really -- I think that Judy's stance is as old as the con game and as understandable. It's how the con game WORKS, and why it's *always* worked. PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONNED DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT, TO THEMSELVES, OR TO ANYONE ELSE. The more self-importance the conned person has, the more vehemently they resist admit- ting that they have been conned. They will become apologists for the con men, will defend them the way that people *who were conned by Je-Ru* defended him, and will go to their graves doing so, because their sense of self-importance is stronger than their sense of integrity and honesty. For such people, it is better to be thought a fool than to admit to having been one. Judy MUST know how ridiculous her stance in all of this makes her look. But she continues that stance nonetheless. I think that my explanation is the only one that fits her behavior. Have you EVER known Judy Stein to admit to having been WRONG, except to a tiny fact or typo? I haven't, either. None of us have. Do you think that a person with that level of self-importance is going to admit to having been WRONG about the very nature of the practice she has been doing every day for 30+ years? Not gonna happen...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
It's almost pure pandering and trolling, as far as I can tell. The lying these two get away with is just outrageous - they should be caled on it, but the others here, except for Judy, are too scared to speak up, I guess. Sal and Turq, the town liars. satvadude108 wrote: Boy, you sure are on a roll. Yeah on a troll, not a 'roll', so why not just shut your pie hole if you don't have anything to contribute to the conversation? The long term effects of sillycybin abuse is often not a pretty sight Willy. Clean it up dude. Get a checking, have a chicken sandwich, get laid, GFY, and there might be hope. Yeah, you've been in and out of religious cults for most of your adult life, but I'm the 'sillycybin' abuser. Good one! As far as I can tell, most of the FFL informants are self-condemned. They were all Marshy's enablers, else they're just trolling here. One thing is fer sure, someone is lying about the TMO and TM practice and I think I know who they are. From: John Manning Subject: Where is Judy when TMers need her? Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2001-11-15 15:59:58 PST I understand that there is a woman named Judy that defends the insanity of MMY and the TM org. I understand that she is very effective in her words to support the spiritually corrupt and crumbling empire of MMY and the TM org. I would love to see her defense of MMY's begging for one billion dollars of other peoples' money to create 'world peace'. I would really like to know how she justifies the *increase* in crime in Fairfield, Iowa after MMY gave the specific numbers otherwise for the Maharishi Effect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
This is just willful stupidity and closedmindedness. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I am SO bored with this topic I can't chime in with much more than a rant. I don't see how anyone with an ounce of integrity can *possibly* be arguing that the TMO does not teach religiously-based ideas. But I do understand WHY people don't have that ounce of integrity. They've been taught that when it comes to fundamental points of TM dogma that the ONLY thing that matters is not only following them but defending them. And one of the strongest and MOST drummed- into-people's-heads pieces of dogma during their TM instruction is TM Is Not A Religion. It's said in every Introductory Lecture, *whether the subject comes up on its own or not*, it's said during each night of the three nights of checking, *whether the subject comes up on its own or not*, and it's said pretty much every time after that that the subject of religion comes up. For years. Ad absurdum. This is arguably **THE** most fundamental piece of TM dogma, probably repeated more often than Thou shalt not strain on the mantra. And after all that much repetition, people just lose all sense of perspective about it. The sub- ject comes up, and they become mindless evangel- ists for the TM Is Not A Religion Religion. They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. There seems to me to be NO QUESTION that teaching TM *as it is taught now* in American school systems violates the Constitution. TM Teachers are just not CAPABLE of teaching the basic technique 1) without a religious puja, and 2) without all of the directly-derived-from- Hinduism explanations of what is really happening when you meditate during the three nights of checking, and afterwards. The ONLY way to keep this essentially religious dogma from being taught in schools is to not allow it to be taught there in the first place. We simply cannot TRUST TM Teachers to leave out the parts of the dogma that are directly derived from Hindu thought when they present the three nights of checking, let alone afterwards, as they try to suck these students into Advanced Tech- niques and the Siddhis. And *everyone* here knows that that's exactly what they will do. It is EXACTLY the same situation that caused Thomas Jefferson to write one of his most remem- bered quotes, the one that graces the Jefferson Memorial in Washington. This quote was written in a letter to a friend discussing an attempt by Christians to teach *their* dogma in a school system. In that particular case, *they* promised not to teach anything explicitly religious either, and NO ONE BELIEVED THEM. NO ONE SHOULD BELIEVE THE TMO EITHER. Instead, believe Thomas Jefferson. He had the right idea: I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man. Jefferson was talking about *preventing* the teach- ing of religion in schools in America. The principle still stands. It stands in the case of Christianity, and it stands in the case of the TM Is Not A Religion Religion. IMO, of course...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukr...@... wrote: This is just willful stupidity and closedmindedness. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I am SO bored with this topic I can't chime in with much more than a rant. I don't see how anyone with an ounce of integrity can *possibly* be arguing that the TMO does not teach religiously-based ideas. But I do understand WHY people don't have that ounce of integrity. They've been taught that when it comes to fundamental points of TM dogma that the ONLY thing that matters is not only following them but defending them. And one of the strongest and MOST drummed- into-people's-heads pieces of dogma during their TM instruction is TM Is Not A Religion. It's said in every Introductory Lecture, *whether the subject comes up on its own or not*, it's said during each night of the three nights of checking, *whether the subject comes up on its own or not*, and it's said pretty much every time after that that the subject of religion comes up. For years. Ad absurdum. This is arguably **THE** most fundamental piece of TM dogma, probably repeated more often than Thou shalt not strain on the mantra. And after all that much repetition, people just lose all sense of perspective about it. The sub- ject comes up, and they become mindless evangel- ists for the TM Is Not A Religion Religion. They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. There seems to me to be NO QUESTION that teaching TM *as it is taught now* in American school systems violates the Constitution. TM Teachers are just not CAPABLE of teaching the basic technique 1) without a religious puja, and 2) without all of the directly-derived-from- Hinduism explanations of what is really happening when you meditate during the three nights of checking, and afterwards. The ONLY way to keep this essentially religious dogma from being taught in schools is to not allow it to be taught there in the first place. We simply cannot TRUST TM Teachers to leave out the parts of the dogma that are directly derived from Hindu thought when they present the three nights of checking, let alone afterwards, as they try to suck these students into Advanced Tech- niques and the Siddhis. And *everyone* here knows that that's exactly what they will do. It is EXACTLY the same situation that caused Thomas Jefferson to write one of his most remem- bered quotes, the one that graces the Jefferson Memorial in Washington. This quote was written in a letter to a friend discussing an attempt by Christians to teach *their* dogma in a school system. In that particular case, *they* promised not to teach anything explicitly religious either, and NO ONE BELIEVED THEM. NO ONE SHOULD BELIEVE THE TMO EITHER. Instead, believe Thomas Jefferson. He had the right idea: I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man. Jefferson was talking about *preventing* the teach- ing of religion in schools in America. The principle still stands. It stands in the case of Christianity, and it stands in the case of the TM Is Not A Religion Religion. IMO, of course... Even a broken clock is right twice a day, or, how about this one, every now and then even a blind squirrel with find a nut! Right on Turq, (don't know about the Jefferson stuff).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
Instead, believe Thomas Jefferson. He had the right idea: shukra wrote: This is just willful stupidity and closedmindedness. Fer chrissakes, this is Turq you are talking about Shukra. According to Turq, all Jefferson wanted to do was find a way to keep and screw his slaves, that's already been established by the Turq. Since Jefferson was obviously immoral, why in the world would Jefferson want his bastard slave love children to learn in school a religious 'dogma' that says screwing your slaves is immoral? Gawd forbid that morality should be taught in public schools! If kids started hearing about morality in public schools, how would they ever get to screw each other and have their own slaves? TurquoiseB wrote: I am SO bored with this topic I can't chime in with much more than a rant. I don't see how anyone with an ounce of integrity can *possibly* be arguing that the TMO does not teach religiously-based ideas. But I do understand WHY people don't have that ounce of integrity. They've been taught that when it comes to fundamental points of TM dogma that the ONLY thing that matters is not only following them but defending them. And one of the strongest and MOST drummed- into-people's-heads pieces of dogma during their TM instruction is TM Is Not A Religion. It's said in every Introductory Lecture, *whether the subject comes up on its own or not*, it's said during each night of the three nights of checking, *whether the subject comes up on its own or not*, and it's said pretty much every time after that that the subject of religion comes up. For years. Ad absurdum. This is arguably **THE** most fundamental piece of TM dogma, probably repeated more often than Thou shalt not strain on the mantra. And after all that much repetition, people just lose all sense of perspective about it. The sub- ject comes up, and they become mindless evangel- ists for the TM Is Not A Religion Religion. They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. There seems to me to be NO QUESTION that teaching TM *as it is taught now* in American school systems violates the Constitution. TM Teachers are just not CAPABLE of teaching the basic technique 1) without a religious puja, and 2) without all of the directly-derived-from- Hinduism explanations of what is really happening when you meditate during the three nights of checking, and afterwards. The ONLY way to keep this essentially religious dogma from being taught in schools is to not allow it to be taught there in the first place. We simply cannot TRUST TM Teachers to leave out the parts of the dogma that are directly derived from Hindu thought when they present the three nights of checking, let alone afterwards, as they try to suck these students into Advanced Tech- niques and the Siddhis. And *everyone* here knows that that's exactly what they will do. It is EXACTLY the same situation that caused Thomas Jefferson to write one of his most remem- bered quotes, the one that graces the Jefferson Memorial in Washington. This quote was written in a letter to a friend discussing an attempt by Christians to teach *their* dogma in a school system. In that particular case, *they* promised not to teach anything explicitly religious either, and NO ONE BELIEVED THEM. NO ONE SHOULD BELIEVE THE TMO EITHER. Instead, believe Thomas Jefferson. He had the right idea: I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man. Jefferson was talking about *preventing* the teach- ing of religion in schools in America. The principle still stands. It stands in the case of Christianity, and it stands in the case of the TM Is Not A Religion Religion. IMO, of course...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:42 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. My personal fave, (paraphrased): We don't have to tell the kids what the underpinnings are, if people like John Knapp would just keep their mouths shut. Now there's a raving endorsement for the integrity of the teaching. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. Not me, I still find it endlessly entertaining. Sal Kinda tells you where the person who frequently says I *never* lie. sets the bar on her personal honesty. Even do.rflex, who had his nose up her butt so long he developed ring around the collar, has acknowledged how completely dishonest this position is regarding the non-religiousity of teaching TM in schools. I've wondered for some time if the vehement argument she makes was based on delusion or dishonesty. It is probably both.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
They'll say ANYTHING rather than admit what MOST of them know to be the truth, that OF COURSE all of the TM dogma is based on Hindu dogma. They'll lie, they'll deny, they'll come with up excuses, they'll obfuscate, they'll attempt to distract, they'll do ANYTHING rather than violate this First Commandment. My personal fave, (paraphrased): We don't have to tell the kids what the underpinnings are, if people like John Knapp would just keep their mouths shut. Now there's a raving endorsement for the integrity of the teaching. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. Not me, I still find it endlessly entertaining. Sal satvadude108 wrote: Kinda tells you where the person who frequently says I *never* lie. sets the bar on her personal honesty. Even do.rflex, who had his nose up her butt so long he developed ring around the collar, has acknowledged how completely dishonest this position is regarding the non-religiousity of teaching TM in schools. I've wondered for some time if the vehement argument she makes was based on delusion or dishonesty. It is probably both. It's almost pure pandering and trolling, as far as I can tell. The lying these two get away with is just outrageous - they should be caled on it, but the others here, except for Judy, are too scared to speak up, I guess. Sal and Turq, the town liars.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willy...@... wrote: It's almost pure pandering and trolling, as far as I can tell. The lying these two get away with is just outrageous - they should be caled on it, but the others here, except for Judy, are too scared to speak up, I guess. Sal and Turq, the town liars. Boy, you sure are on a roll. The long term effects of sillycybin abuse is often not a pretty sight Willy. Clean it up dude. Get a checking, have a chicken sandwich, get laid, GFY, and there might be hope. http://snipurl.com/en4uh Is it always about the rodents with you? Whats with that? http://snipurl.com/en5wm
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: The ONLY way to keep this essentially religious dogma from being taught in schools is to not allow it to be taught there in the first place. We simply cannot TRUST TM Teachers to leave out the parts of the dogma that are directly derived from Hindu thought when they present the three nights of checking, let alone afterwards, as they try to suck these students into Advanced Tech- niques and the Siddhis. And *everyone* here knows that that's exactly what they will do. So, you might ask, what WOULD I support as a suitable use of David Lynch's money, to achieve his laudable goal of making meditation more available to students? 1. Open the program to *all* popular forms of meditation, not just TM. If a school agrees to the program, they cannot be agreeing to fund only the TM movement. 2. The quiet time periods are open to anyone practicing any form of meditation or contemplation. The only requirement is that you sit quietly and do not bother the other students for the allotted period of time. 3. No on-campus instruction. Lynch's fund can pay for TM instruction, but somewhere else, not on campus. If his fund doesn't want to pay for instruction in some other form of meditation, that is understandable. Perhaps those other forms of meditation will develop similar programs to subsidize teaching their form of meditation, or teach it for free. Hell, many of them *already* teach for free. 4. No on-campus checking. Students can ask for checking or followup, and the school can help to arrange it with the meditation provider (not necessarily the TMO if the student is practicing some other form), but it should not be done on campus. By ANY of the providers. The temptation to evan- gelize is just too great, and cannot be resisted; history has shown us that. 5. No on-campus solicitation of students to take the next course or get an Advanced Technique or learn the siddhis or go on a retreat or residence course. Again, by ANY of the providers. If they want to evan- gelize and recruit into their cult or religion, they have to do it OFF CAMPUS. Those are my positive thoughts on the matter. You guys can now pick them apart as you want. I really WOULD like to see more people med- itating. It's just that I see this initiative as a desperate ploy by the TMO to *sell more mantras to schoolkids*, because they are incapable of selling them to anyone else. The bottom line for me is that I think that this program, as it stands today, 1) violates the Constitution, and 2) forces school systems and parents to TRUST THE PROVIDERS. In my hastily-written program above, I don't think that either of those things are a problem. The other bottom line is that if there is any- thing that history should have taught us, YOU CANNOT TRUST THE TM MOVEMENT. If there is a way to evangelize, they will do it. Hell, they feel that it's their sacred DUTY to evangelize. If there is a way to fuck it up, they will find it. And if there is a way to use this system to funnel more money into the TMO, they will find that. I think my system is more fair -- to the kids, to the school systems, to the parents, to the providers of meditation instruction, and to the U.S. Constitution. If you don't agree, do better. Let's hear YOUR proposal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: The ONLY way to keep this essentially religious dogma from being taught in schools is to not allow it to be taught there in the first place. We simply cannot TRUST TM Teachers to leave out the parts of the dogma that are directly derived from Hindu thought when they present the three nights of checking, let alone afterwards, as they try to suck these students into Advanced Tech- niques and the Siddhis. And *everyone* here knows that that's exactly what they will do. So, you might ask, what WOULD I support as a suitable use of David Lynch's money, to achieve his laudable goal of making meditation more available to students? 1. Open the program to *all* popular forms of meditation, not just TM. If a school agrees to the program, they cannot be agreeing to fund only the TM movement. That would be what I would do if I had Davids funds. But alas, momentarily I don't. 2. The quiet time periods are open to anyone practicing any form of meditation or contemplation. The only requirement is that you sit quietly and do not bother the other students for the allotted period of time. I am all for that. 3. No on-campus instruction. Lynch's fund can pay for TM instruction, but somewhere else, not on campus. Nah. As long as they don't keep other classes from using the room, If the room is empty, its ok. Otherwise, what you imply is that no public libraries, civic auditoriums, university rooms, etc cold be use. Way too anal for me. YMMV If his fund doesn't want to pay for instruction in some other form of meditation, that is understandable. Perhaps those other forms of meditation will develop similar programs to subsidize teaching their form of meditation, or teach it for free. Hell, many of them *already* teach for free. Great. The more the merrier. Competition of methods. See which work better. 4. No on-campus checking. Students can ask for checking or followup, and the school can help to arrange it with the meditation provider (not necessarily the TMO if the student is practicing some other form), but it should not be done on campus. By ANY of the providers. The temptation to evan- gelize is just too great, and cannot be resisted; history has shown us that. nah, same as 3. I would only be worried that students would be hit upon by their checkers -- a common practice. But that can happen in any room. 5. No on-campus solicitation of students to take the next course or get an Advanced Technique or learn the siddhis or go on a retreat or residence course. Again, by ANY of the providers. If they want to evan- gelize and recruit into their cult or religion, they have to do it OFF CAMPUS. -- it depends. Proselytizing and evangelism is not called for. Discusssing Buddhist med II -- maybe ok.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Is Not A Religion Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I am SO bored with this topic I can't chime in with much more than a rant. I don't see how anyone with an ounce of integrity can *possibly* be arguing that the TMO does not teach religiously-based ideas. I don't argue that TM has religious roots. I do argue that my practice of TM, or yoga, or Ayurvedic diet, or massage all of which have religious roots, makes me a part of or practicing the root religion. 80% of what is taught ins schools also have religious roots. Our civilization is to a good extent Greco-Roman which where highly god-based cultures -- with a strong overlay of theologically based-European traditions. I am not clear where to draw the line, but drawing it for TM and not the pledge of allegiance, discussions of religious background and traditions in history class, use of religious based art and music in those classes, teaching the theories of that religious occultist nut Newton in physics class, etc seems both arbitrary and biased. And personally I'm getting a little tired of it. There seems to me to be NO QUESTION that teaching TM *as it is taught now* in American school systems violates the Constitution. How is that? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; I am missing the connection of teaching a secular technique with religious roots as creating a state sponsored religion.
