Comment below: *** --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Marek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: **SNIP** > > I've heard (or read, actually) of other saints who would get > > immersed in the trivial with as much focus, energy, and enthusiasm > > as the (apparently) more important issues of life. > > > > If, from the standpoint of Brahman, everything is as important as > > everything else (because all appearances only have value relative > to > > other appearances and there is no independent substance or reality > > to any of them) and, if Maharishi is established in Brahman (which > > despite the many allegations of behavior that strikes me as > puzzling > > or dissappointing on the level of the relative, is not in any way > > dispositive that he is not [established in Brahman]), then this > type > > of focussed awareness on whatever is the subject at hand would > seem > > to be a perfectly natural phenomenon. > > > > Awareness may stand alone but brought into contact with the > relative > > it becomes attention. If one is living Brahman as one's Awareness > > then That is what is brought as Attention to the matter at hand, > > whatever that may be. > > > > For many of us who are very engaged in the world it seems that in > > Maharishi's "management" style there was never any real priority > > setting. Almost any project became "the" priority project for a > > time -- generally the time that Maharishi's attention was on it. > As > > soon as he turned his attention elsewhere the former priority > faded > > entirely. > > > > Most of us in the West seem very (or relatively) competent at > > juggling multiple tasks and assigning constantly shifting > priorities > > with appropriate time allocations. Maharishi doesn't. But > perhaps > > it's likely that he was able to accomplish what he has because > when > > he did put his attention on the task at hand he brought Brahman to > > bear on it. > > > > Marek > > > Marek, > > That's all very nice as both an esoteric explanation and > justification as to why MMY has done things. > > Regardless, I must observe and assess those things from my own, > admittedly, limited western-based consciousness of values. And > those values include science, rationality, and common sense. > > But guess what? I started TM -- and got involved in the TMO -- > under the auspices of science, rationality, and common sense. There > was NO PLACE for gurus, blind devotion, and cults in either TM or > the TMO when I joined up. > > So I very well may be thinking and operating from an inferior and > limited state of consciousness and values but that is the level at > which TM was supposed to work...so that is the level at which I will > assess MMY and his activities.
**SNIP TO END** I can't (and don't) disagree with you, but if we refuse to evaluate the merits of meditation on any other metric than the "western-based consciousness of values" it's obvious that we're going to be disappointed with the "ultimate" results. We're all very much aware by this point that Maharishi was "selling" TM to the West based on the "benefits" of meditation he perceived westerners would value and were more or less likely to be enjoyed by most people who meditated correctly. But, in my experience at least, it didn't take much more than an advanced lecture or two to realize that TM, in spite of the initial sales pitch, was part of an esoteric Indian tradition and it was that underlying philosophical structure that provided the real framework in which the significant growth or progress of the meditator could be evaluated. Also, once you saw Maharishi and spent any time with him (or spoke with anyone who had spent time with him) it was clear that what Maharishi was actually promising was a level of happiness and life satisfaction that was far beyond getting better grades, or a more restful night's sleep, or less stress, etc. It was Bliss that he was promising and furthermore, his person radiated that message with tremendous wattage. That fundamental message or offer is the same that all the saints have always proclaimed. For some reason, though, Maharishi just always emphasized the relative values over the absolute even though he always talked about the absolute. It's like he never trusted that people would be drawn to the deeper spiritual values over the relative ones. 200% of life, All Glories Worldly and Divine -- it sounds fine and all -- it sounds great when all you want is more money, more power, more sex, etc., but if you get 100% of the Divine Glory (or even some real taste of it ) then the other 100% just doesn't even exist, much less matter. At some point, based on your own experience, you've got to come to the realization that there's nothing -- no thing -- that's ever going to satisfy. Ever. And yet acquiring and amassing things is core to the current cultural paradigm, maybe has always been core and probably is just the nature of the mind itself. So, as far as I can figure out, you've got to start re-evaluating what it is you really want and what is the scale on which you measure its achievement. Real and permanent achievement (fulfillment) can't be on the level of the body or the mind or anything else in the world. If you limit yourself to what you can get or are in the world as the measure of how good or useful something is to you, then TM is going to come up short regardless but its real value is in transcending. I think we've got to expand our models of evaluation. Marek To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
