Nice post Edg. It captures the nudge nudge wink wink environment of our first exposure to TM. In my personal interview I alarmed the teachers also by telling them that I had read "Meditations of MMY" before my intro, so I was taking TM for God realization. I was only 16 but I caught the body language shift and also accepted unchallenged the quick switch to the scientific charts. But they assured me that TM fulfilled ALL desires no matter what they were.
As an MIU student with a lot of access to MMY's early lectures from an inside connection in the library, (getting unauthorized info was like scoring weed) I was full of "inappropriate" questions for teachers at my home center during "advanced" lectures. I remember one straightening me out about maintaining the code of secrecy in front of new meditators. When the press used to talk to movement reps they often commented on the obvious double reality in the teaching. Surrounded by religious images and phrases they listen to a smug guy in a suit tell them "Are you gunna believe your lying eyes or what I'm telling you?" Now the cat is so far out of the bag, the movement is much more like the early SRM. That seems more congruent and honest IMO. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This discussion is so twisted by trollism. > > I actually wanted to know MORE about what Maharishi really thought > about angels and gods, so there I was asking Stan Crowe -- hoping that > he'd admit that the dynamics of meditation involved incredible > subtlety such that the "forces of nature" would be discovered by my > having TM increase my perceptual abilities. Stan disappointed me, > because he didn't want to spook the rest of the audience with a > religious discussion at a first lecture. > > Before the first lecture, I had already been exposed to the oxygen > study published in Scientific American, and I had "bought into" that > research and thought that "at last, science and religion will be > reconciled." I started TM almost entirely because of Wallace's > "results." Sigh. > > Additionally, who are we kidding? The SBAL is incredibly spiritual if > not outright religious, and I ate it right up. I saw that TM was > being marketed secularly, but I was already "in on" the sacred stuff > that the audience didn't know. I pushed it a bit, but seeing Stan > begin to sweat, I let his smarmy answers go unchallenged by follow up > questions. > > How anyone could read the SBAL WITHOUT seeing it as a spiritual tomb > with echoes of Hinduism is beyond me. It is flat out in love with the > set of spiritual concepts that almost any religion's representatives > would immediately recognize as "concepts we're got our dogma down pat > about." The SBAL is a beginner's Bible for all things Ved that > nowadays we see so glaringly present in the TMO presentation of the > new priest caste, the pundits etc. Who could not see that this was > "all in the offing" after even a single chapter of the SBAL is > considered? I didn't miss it, that's for sure. Hell, I bought my > first necklace of Rudraksha beads from GC Judy within three months of > starting meditation -- was in teacher training in five months. > > When I went to that SCI one month course in 1971 in Arcata, virtually > everyone I talked with was buzzed on the spiritual aspects and > thrilled that science had finally validated what our hearts were > soaring about -- I felt absolutely smug that I had found the one true > religion that could be defended by scientific facts. Sigh. > > What does the Spiritual Regeneration Movement, as TM's first > presentation, mean other than "We've got the inside track to God?" > > For me to be flamed because I thought that the SBAL was, well, what it > was, seems to be merely the need of the trolls to attack someone for > any reason -- even if the reason is unsupportable. > > When Richard the War Monger says, "Which just goes to prove that, > contrary to what Edg implied, Maharishi didn't talk much about > religion, gods, angels or demons when he composed SBAL," he reveals > exactly that he's a troll and not a person involved in a dialog. Any > jury of 12 folks would recognize the SBAL as a religious book written > by a priestly type of guy who is a Hindu monk by admission -- what > else could the SBAL be except a work about God, and if God is on just > about every page then even rare mention of "gods" or "angels" must be > validated as constructs that are legitimate in Maharishi's dogma. > > That I "picked up on it," that I had read SBAL before my first > lecture, and that I truly did see the whole magilla that has fully > blossomed today only shows that those of us who were "so disposed" > back then, "got it," and we not afraid to own that we were joining a > religion with a Hindu priest/saint leading us with a sword and shield > called "science." > > Edg > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > <willytex@> wrote: > > > > Judy wrote: > > > For the record, while there are three references > > > to "angels," there is only one to "gods," plural. > > > All the rest are to "God," singular, capitalized, > > > and many of these are in phrases such as "God > > > consciousness" and "God realization"--i.e., > > > enlightenment. > > > > > So, it has been established that Maharishi doesn't actually > > talk about the "gods" in SBAL, except in one single instance > > refering to "gods," plural. Maharishi doesn't actualy name > > any of the "gods" and he doesn't seem to talk much about any > > "angels" either. Would there be any angels in Hinduism to > > talk about, in any case? But I wonder why Maharishi didn't > > mention the yakshis or the asparsas in SBAL. Which just goes > > to prove that, contrary to what Edg implied, Maharishi > > didn't talk much about religion, gods, angels or demons when > > he composed SBAL. > > >
