--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
> I just think the whole objection is vastly overblown > and highly artificial and largely motivated by > resentment, not concern for the students. I don't think reducing the points I have made in this discussion as being somehow motivated by some negitive emotion does justice to the points made. I am not objecting for emotional reasons. I have given you the intellectual reasons why I believe TM is religious and I'm sure I don't have to make a case with you why religion shouldn't be promoted in schools do I? It is a very important topic unless you don't care if schools end up with "creation science" sharing the classroom with evolutionary theory. I disagree with your assessment of the religious nature of TM, but am not inclined to sum up your POV as the result of some negitive emotional state. We just disagree on the religious nature of TM instruction. This doesn't surprise me because you didn't spend many weeks bowing down to the floor to a picture of Maharishi's dead guru after invoking divine and semi divine Gods in the Hindu religion.(Vyasa is 3/4 Vishnu don't ya know.) It is easier for you to ignore its religious roots. My concern is for the principle of separating religious teaching from publicly funded schools because of the aggressive nature of evangelical groups trying to pass off their religious beliefs as science. TM is only one of the groups I am against doing this and it isn't because I have some "resentment" towards Christian fundamentalists. It is not only the welfare of the "children" at stake here. We are dealing with the integrity how we approach science in schools, and how we keep schools secular enough to support the education of our multi-cultural, pluralistic society. > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > [Curtis wrote:] > > > > > > Sure it does. Anyone who doesn't participate in the > > > > > > traditional religious interpretation of meditation > > > > > > experiences can enjoy it as a secular practice. And > > > > > > it is also not required to believe that you are > > > > > > experiencing something trans-personal just because > > > > > > it feels that way. > > > > > > > > > > Wait. How does this jibe with your objection to Lynch's > > > > > program? > > > > > > > > I am talking about how I approach Meditation,not how > > > > it is taught which is the relevant thing for schools. > > > > > > None of what you describe is required for TM. It's > > > taught *as a secular practice*. And it's not required > > > that you believe you are experiencing something > > > transpersonal, whether it feels that way or not. > > > > Invoking Narayana is not secular. > > They don't teach anybody to invoke Narayana. > > <snip> > > > > The basic 3 days checking course is full of religious > > > > belief about what is happening in TM > > > > > > Such as, specifically? > > > > The whole trans-personal premise of the home of all > > the laws of nature is Hindu theology. > > But it's not taught as such, first of all. And second, > such notions have a far wider scope than Hinduism. What > MMY teaches is basically the philosophy known as > Idealism, that consciousness is ontologocally prior to > matter (no deity required). Calling it "religious" as > it's taught in TM is a big stretch. > > > And despite the physics terms used as poetry to > > describe it, it is not scientific. > > What you mean by "religious," it seems, is "not > scientific," in the sense of modern science. (There's > a good case to be made for TM as a *subjective* > science, a la Ken Wilber.) But that's a very > conveniently broad definition. > > > > (In any case, we don't know yet exactly how the follow- > > > up is going to be taught in Lynch's project.) > > > > Let's see movement running it...the ball is gunna get > > dropped. > > But remember that Lynch is providing the funding. > He doesn't want it to blow up because the TMO drops > the ball; my guess is he's going to keep a close > eye on it. > > > In any case where are the people trained in physiology > > so determine if a student is having the kind of > > reactions Singer treated in TMers? Teachers are not > > trained to handle anything not in the checking notes. > > Well, that's an entirely different issue. In any case, > citations to Singer don't impress me much. > > > > > If I was hanging out with monks and joined them in the > > > > Jesus prayer (using the name of Jesus as a mantra to > > > > transcend) then I would be doing it as a secular > > > > practice. But that doesn't mean that it is OK to teach > > > > the Jesus prayer in schools does it? > > > > > > Bad analogy. "Jesus" is the name of a (probably) > > > historical personage well known to almost everyone > > > to be central to a specific religion, not a > > > semantically meaningless Sanskrit sound. > > > > So if we use the Greek word we can teach the Jesus > > prayer in schools followed by an invocation of Yaweh? > > I'm surprised you don't see the problem here. > > That's a little closer, but not much. It's not the > way the mantras are used in TM. > > > > > Despite TM teacher's denials, I believe TM is a > > > > religious practice supported by traditional religious > > > > interpretations of the experience. > > > > > > But they're taught to teach it as a secular practice > > > supported by nonsectarian metaphysical principles. > > > > This term "nonsectarian metaphysical principles" has > > personal meaning for you but not for me. To me, TM > > teaches Hinduism with new names. That doesn't make it > > nonsectarian. > > Like I said, it's Idealism. What TMers are taught > (and remember we're just talking about the three > days of checking, which don't involve all that much > in the way of metaphysics) is by no means unique to > Hinduism or any particular religion. > > > You really can't get around the sectarian nature > > of the Puja which the person participates in using > > the only method of any Hindu Puja participation, > > you pay for it and you bring offerings. > > Which, as far as the TM student is concerned, are > offerings to the person who's about to teach them TM. > (And they're paying for the instruction, not the puja.) > > I just think the whole objection is vastly overblown > and highly artificial and largely motivated by > resentment, not concern for the students. >
