The Christians whom I've banged against think that TM's "pure being" is the Devil's Playground -- one is opening one's self to demonic possession, ya see?
Tell them that the goal is thoughtlessness and they run away from such a state, since it "has no stance" and that leaves Jesus out in the cold without his worshiper's mind being focused on him. The whole "idolatry" issue could be being missed here. To me, Moses was angry that folks were looking in the relative for the Absolute, not that worshiping the Golden Calf was sinful but that worshiping any THING was sinful -- including one's own mind's ideas about the nature of God. God cannot be given a name lest it become an object of fixation. Any name would be a quality -- not "all qualities." Even God refused to name Himself to Moses and was content to say He should be referred to by the phrase "I am that I am." Clearly Moses' God knows He's amness -- not the Absolute -- and was instructing the faithful to have no truck with experiences or conclusions, but instead, be silent instead of worshiping, say, the burning bush Moses was given as an embodiment of God. Moses didn't tell everyone to run up the mountain and bow to the bush, so Moses "got it" too. That said, they did keep the two tablets in an ark, and it was the holy of holies, so somewhere along the line, someone got their jollies with materiality. It's a Doctor Seuss rhyme. My name is I am, and I am that I am I am I am. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > snip > > > Great topic. I only went back a few posts on this > > > so I may miss some things. But as far as if it matters > > > to some religious people that they are using another > > > form of religious practice, I think that is more the > > > norm for even moderately religious people. Many modern > > > thinkers take it all with a grain of salt but > > > superstitions remain. The idea that you shouldn't > > > worship false idols was made pretty clear by Charlton > > > Heston with that unfortunate Golden Calf incident in > > > the 10 Commandments movie. The idea that you might be > > > invoking some being with a mantra unknowingly gives > > > plenty of religious people pause. > > > > Just for one thing, the Golden Calf was supposed to > > be an idol *of Yahweh*, not of a different god. The > > big sin of the Israelites was that they weren't > > worshipping Yahweh directly as they'd been > > commanded to do. > > Yes that's right, I stand corrected. They were violating the second > commandment rather than the first: 1) "Thou shalt have no other gods before > me." 2) "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," However my point > still stands that this point got driven home to Christians, even casual ones > and the dramatic movie is one of the ways that they imagine God laying down > the law. > > > > > As to your second point, let me go back to my earlier > > comment on which the one above was based, responding > > to Vaj: > > > > ----- > > > I'm speaking in general of Abrahamic religions. If > > > they were told and given full disclosure up front: > > > hey guys and gals, this is a meditation method based > > > on mentally repeating the seed syllables of Indian > > > Tantric pagan goddesses to awaken this goddess within > > > you (creative intelligence) and allow you to achieve > > > a thought-free (transcendental), peaceful state-- > > > they most likely wouldn't go for it. > > > > [Moi:] > > However, none of the Abrahamic religions believes > > in the existence of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses. > > So according to their dogmas, it doesn't matter > > what Indian Tantrics think TM involves; it's just > > a fanciful story, completely irrelevant to the > > practice of TM by Christians, Jews, or Muslims. > > ----- > > > > If you don't believe in other competing beings, or > > don't believe they can be "invoked" by repeating a > > Sanskrit sound, how can you be concerned that this > > is what you may be doing when you practice TM? > > It violates the first commandment still. In the ooga bugga world of > religious beliefs many Christians view such Hindu gods as demonic forces. So > I don't believe that most Christians are so free of a superstitious fear of > worshiping other beings. They do believe that the devil can take any form to > deceive you. > > > > > > In any case more honesty would give people more of > > > a choice in this. > > > > Would it? If by "more honesty" you mean telling people > > they're invoking a deity when they entertain the mantra, > > I'm not sure that's accurate. > > > > Seems to me there are at least two honest descriptions > > of TM. One is that it involves mentally entertaining a > > semantically meaningless sound; the other is that Hindus > > believe the sound invokes a "pagan Tantric deity." > > > > To whom does this latter description give more of a > > choice? You're actually *eliminating* the choice to do > > TM for certain people who believe invoking such a > > deity would be a Bad Thing. > > I agree that these are two different POV's on the mantras which have a > certain amount of validity in context. I think full disclosure of the > mantra's religious source is the right thing. If what you say is true, that > the religious people don't believe in Hindu gods, then they wont have any > problem. But they should be given the choice by not hiding their origin. We > know from teaching TM in India that the whole meaningless sounds "innocence" > argument is bogus. > > I am sensing a bit of withholding information for their own good in your last > statement. I believe that is unethical. They can decide for themselves if > they want to view it as a problem. Many have decided that it is not. But > the TM technique is taught from the perspective that TM is tree and root and > other religions are the branches. As we have discussed before, I believe this > is an assumptively condescending position over other religions. That is one > reason why Maharishi doesn't care about what other religious people believe > in his triumphalist arrogance. > > > > <snip> > > > > If you could bring yourself to rebut the logic of > > > > my statement, I'd be happy to try to refine it. I > > > > do think the basic point is a significant component > > > > of the argument, but it may require more > > > > qualification. > > > > > > I think some religious people who have the logic > > > skills can be extremely logical in expressing their > > > assumptive premises. But because most people don't > > > study logic's place in epistemology they are overly > > > impressed with its display while ignoring the man > > > behind the curtain. There is nothing illogical with > > > claiming that 3 out of 4 dentist's prefer Crest > > > toothpaste. But it is a bit moronic to ignore the > > > reality of statistical sampling, the fallacy of > > > inductive reasoning, or even how many Dental > > > "conference" trips to the land of coke and hookers > > > Crest doles out to the sampled dentists to create > > > such a preference. > > > > Not a very good analogy for the logic of my statement > > with a view to adding necessary qualifications. > > Agreed. I hope that is not all you gleaned from what I wrote. > > > > > >
