--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "the only metric worth using is the measurement of how much social > good does any action promote." > > Off_W you're trying to stay un-involved but what you think about this > observation of Marek? Like, where are you going with your defending > peer review TM research if not also a TM-jihad in these times, with > any worthwhile metric? With every fibre of your being. " >>
Yes I am, and anything of any worth in this world takes time to plan and prepare as any scientifically minded person should know. OffWorld <<the only > metric worth using is the measurement of how much social good does > any action promote." > > -Doug in FF > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > [Actually, I think it was you, Curtis, and/or New.Morning (among > others) who got > me > thinking that the only metric worth using is the measurement of how > much social > good does any action promote. So I still feel meditation is > an "intelligent > thing to do" > (quoting Richard Williams), both as an end in itself and as an > adjunct to a good > and > purposeful life.] > > > > > > > > Comments [interleaved]: > > > > ** > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Marek > > > "Like many here who have taught and promoted TM in the past, I was > > > ready, willing and able to be less than candid or truthful about > the > > > TMO or its programs if I felt that the ultimate result would be > that > > > someone would learn meditation or continue meditation based on > what I > > > told them. I look back on that now and regret having bought into > > > that mindset. That was an incorrect choice and bad behavior on my > > > part. There are times when perfect candor may be inappropriate but > > > for the most part honesty and transparency is better, > particularly in > > > promoting a program for the upliftment of society. To the degree > > > Maharishi or anyone in the TMO has departed from that, then to > that > > > degree I feel that they have devalued their stated purpose and > have > > > failed." > > > > > > > > > Nice to hear from you again Marek. As usual you served up some > > > thoughtful material. I attribute my youthful (up to age 31 so not > > > sooo young!) infatuation with pushing TM in its brochure sanitized > > > form to be a result of my own lack of comfort living with > > > imperfection. One of the greatest gifts of aging has been the > > > necessity to accept life on imperfect terms that I would have > rejected > > > when I believed in perfection. Now the idea of perfection in any > area > > > of my life seems like such a boor. Definitely not something to > aspire > > > for anymore. > > > > > > > [Yes, I agree, and similarly, when I left the movement and later > stopped meditating > > for many years, one wonderful consequence was finally being able > to "be" with people > > rather than draw some imaginary (but inviolate) distinction between > them and me; > > that distinction being their status in re TM -- meditator/non- > meditator. That > > fundamental difference made all the difference in how I related to > that person from > > then on. One of the things I love about my work is the opportunity > to learn firsthand > > how very much alike we all are regardless of how we place on the > socio-economic or > > intellectural scales, or the spiritual scale for that matter.] > > > > > > > I've been reading Jon Kabat-zin's books lately and tried his > > > meditation a few times. It made me wonder what the result of > MMY's > > > life work is really. It does seem like a cool thing that he got > so > > > many people to take a chill pill and meditate. But then somehow > it > > > didn't seem to stick. I wonder if it was too much to ask for > even 20 > > > minutes twice a day. 10 minutes once a day might be more > realistic. > > > But then all the inflated claims about what meditation did for a > > > person made it into a group of believers. I wonder if the sidhis > > > knocked out most of the casual meditators. That was probably too > bad. > > > I think that the centering effect of meditaton may be something > > > people would benefit from. But who wants to associate with a group > > > that is claiming yogic flyers? Mostly people who can swallow > some of > > > the beliefs about TM's spiritual connection I guess. > > > > > > > [Had never heard of Jon Kabat-zin until now; for sure I'm going to > check into what he > > says/teaches. Can you say anything more about what you learned? > > > > It's trite to say, but I think that Maharishi just hit the mark > when the time was ripe; > > and he had a good meditation that was particularly well-suited for > the masses; there > > were a number of competing systems around the time when I learned, > Ananda Marga, > > ISKCON, Stephen Gaskin, Ram Das, Krishnamurti, Rajneesh in the > 80s. All those > > movements had pretty big numbers for a while but they didn't have > the staying power > > of TM. > > > > I know of some people who learned TM in the 70s and who continue to > meditate > > regularly, if only once a day; and I met a woman sometime last year > who told me that > > she had learned TM in the 80s and meditated twice a day for over 7 > years and > > stopped for no particular reason around the time of a divorce. > When we spoke she > > seemed kind of surprised that she had stopped; she said she'd > always really enjoyed > > it and went to a couple of residence course. But the introduction > of the siddhis really > > knocked the whole thing into a cocked hat. > > > > But it was so outrageous to claim levitation! Holy shit, I > thought, that's got to be real > > because you couldn't just say "that" and not deliver! Holy Shit! > People are flying! > > That's really pretty much the way I took it; it was so fucking > amazing to find out that > > the age of miracles was right now! This was IT! Any lingering > doubts I might have > > had went completely away. Experience re-introduced them to me > later on. The > > effect on the growth curve of the TMO and the meditation movement > was pretty > > obvious and dramatic.] > > > > > > > Now we have some idea that the group most devoted to TM, and > > > presumably most representative of its long term effects, aren't > > > exactly coming through with much of interest for me. Buying into > the > > > Raja nonsense is an important line of beliefs in the movement. I > > > think I can relate to any long term meditator who gets the joke > about > > > those guys. If they can't, I really feel there is a serious > > > disconnect with my values. > > > > > > > [The whole raaja/raani thing is, again, so absolutely weird and > ballsy at the same > > time. I hesitate to beleive that Maharishi is crazy; there are > still too many highly > > functioning people around him who apparently follow his dicta and > promote his ideas > > sincerely; that gives me some confidence that he still acts more or > less rationally. > > And if he's thinking rationally, then there's some reason behind it > all, at least in his > > mind, and I don't believe that for Maharishi it was "all" about > money. Money > > obviously became very important and fairly early on. Maharishi's > upbringing was > > reportely within a business/trading family, so that's not too > surprising either. He's a > > smart guy and at some point he realized he could prosper while > doing this great > > thing. I'm still in love with the guy, or at least the guy I knew - > - good enough.] > > > > > > > Mystical experiences within religious beliefs has always been > such a > > > tiny portion any religion, that I don't think we really know much > > > about this yet. Since most of the ancient experiences were made > at a > > > time when mental illness was not separated out, I think we have > to be > > > cautious of using some famous examples of mystics as proof of > > > anything. I have spent some time with people who were in the > grips of > > > mental illness and they are quite sure about themselves and their > > > divine nature sometimes. Very sure. Me, not so much. I think > your > > > criteria of connecting virtues with inner experiences is valid > > > although a lot of post have been devote to the idea that you > can't. > > > Any state that doesn't show improvement in how a person treats > others > > > seems highly suspect to me. > > > > > > > [Actually, I think it was you, Curtis, and/or New.Morning (among > others) who got me > > thinking that the only metric worth using is the measurement of how > much social > > good does any action promote. So I still feel meditation is > an "intelligent thing to do" > > (quoting Richard Williams), both as an end in itself and as an > adjunct to a good and > > purposeful life.] > > > > > > > All good rambles must come to an end. You posts always get me > > > thinking so thanks for that Marek! > > > > > > > Thanks to you, Curtis. I got far behind in my FFL reading and it > took me some time > > to catch up just with that, much less post myself. There's been > lots of good posting. > > And there are so many people who post on FFL whom I admire and > whose input has > > really helped inform me. It's a unique community, I feel > privileged to participate. > > > > Marek > > >
