[Correction: sentence should read: "TM is religion based, *not* just religion derived."]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavisma...@...> wrote: > > Judy, you accurately describe the attitude that I, as an intiator, tried to > project to initiates who did not kneel when cued to do so. You also > accurately characterize your initiation setting as being religious (or > religiously ambiguous), "If the teacher was religious, that was OK with me, > but I had no intention of joining his religion, if that's what it was." > > TM is religion based, just religion derived. You can practice the meditation > without the religion, but under the federal Constitution, the meditation > instruction is unquestionably a religious ceremony. I cannot imagine the TMO > overcoming the legal challenges that will be made against teaching the > meditation (which requires the specific form of instruction utilizing the > puja) in public schools. > > It's not even a close call IMO. > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > > > Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing > > > so hard -- thanks for that. > > > > > > Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea > > > that it's just a posture, merely equivalent with any other, > > > and that a person would assume that pose immediately > > > following a religious(-type) ceremony (and on cue from the > > > instructor), and not draw the immediate conclusion that the > > > whole thing is religion-based is absurd. > > > > The point, of course, is that the person kneeling is > > the one who imputes meaning to it. There's nothing > > *inherently* religious about kneeling (e.g., one kneels > > in the garden to plant bulbs and pull weeds). > > > > Of course specific contexts narrow the possible meanings > > for the individual who kneels. But there's still a range. > > When I was initiated, I assumed the gesture to kneel had > > to do with showing respect for my teacher, to whom the > > ceremony was pretty obviously important. But I didn't see > > it as any different from the way Christians will don a > > yarmulke when they attend a Jewish ceremony of ome kind, > > or the way Obama made a very low bow to the Saudi king > > recently--sort of a "When in Rome..." attitude. > > > > It would never have occurred to me in a million years > > that I would have been committing myself to worship > > Guru Dev or the teachers of the "Holy Tradition" if I > > had knelt. That wouldn't have been what *I* meant by it. > > If the teacher was religious, that was OK with me, but > > I had no intention of joining his religion, if that's > > what it was. > > > > As it happens, I respectfully declined to kneel just on > > general principles, and that appeared to be fine with > > the teacher. If he'd *insisted* that I kneel, on the > > other hand, I probably would have walked out. That it > > was voluntary confirmed to me that he respected my > > autonomy amd wasn't trying to convert me to anything. > > >
