--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > I would be astonished if he permitted the TMO to > > fart around in such a way that threatened the > > viability of the project, which would surely > > happen if it didn't keep a tight clamp on > > anything that might make people nervous. > > So he's going to drop the puja huh?
Doubt it. But given the standard explanation of what it is, historically most people don't seem to have been bothered by it. > In any case he has no control over the kid's access > to checking Oooh, yes, checking is sooooo religious! or further information a few years down > the road with a dying organization. How long are we trying to protect these kids from obtaining information about TM? He will be no > better equipped to deal with physiological problems. Is that a religious issue? > He is a TB and will take the sage advice of the Rajas. Or not. He didn't seem to have had any problem taking over from Raja Kornhaus (I think it was) at that German event and trying to fix the damage after the Raja stupidly talked about "invincible Germany." As far as I can tell, all Lynch is interested in is to get kids meditating. I find it difficult to believe that he'd allow the TMO to do anything that would make it less likely for schools to adopt and maintain the program. I simply can't imagine he has any truck with the rajas other than as vehicles to implement the program he wants implemented. He isn't going to let them get in its way as long as he's supplying the funding. <snip> > > > > So if I can ignore its "religious roots," why can't > > > > the kids? > > > > > > That is not the issue. Some may be able to > > > ignore the religious roots of TM. > > > > They should all be able to ignore it, since it > > wouldn't come to their attention in the absence > > of interference from people like Knapp. > > So if they don't know it is a religious ceremony > that is OK? It's OK with me. Shouldn't be done on school grounds, though. > I think you are missing the point. We aren't using > the student's perspective on any aspect of keeping > religious doctrines from schools. Don't you think > they are also fooled about creation "science?" "Creation science" as part of the school science curriculum is a different animal entirely. I wouldn't want SCI to be taught as part of the school science curriculum. > Tying to pin this on John Knapp seems fishy to me. > Bringing up this concern is a collective interest > of more than John. How does "from people like John Knapp" suggest it's only Knapp who would bring it up? > And the whole idea that it might slip through without > scrutiny if people just keep their mouth's shut seems > very slippery to me. Only if you're worried that the kids will be exposed to religious indoctrination. My argument is that there isn't enough of it in the basic TM course to be concerned about. > An open debate is appropriate. Here we go back to what I said earlier about how difficult it is for folks to get the whole picture. Even with "open debate," the issues are never going to be fully aired. > My opinion may not be your own, but it is not > uninformed. I am making valid concerns whether > you agree with them or not. They're valid to you, certainly. > There > > just isn't anything *intrinsically* religious > > about the basic TM course from the students' > > perspective. > > They don't have an informed perspective, how could they? > Again fooling kids is not the criteria for what makes > anything religious in schools. You mean, they're being fooled into not realizing they've been magically transformed by the puja and are invoking Hindu deities when they meditate? > I could get them to take communion if I wanted to > using substitute words. If you did sufficient substitution to disguise what communion is, it would no longer be a religious ceremony. > It has to be added on. Don't wrap > > it up in a religious package, and it isn't > > religious. > > You are in serious denial about the puja. I am not > wrapping it up in anything. I know what's in the puja, Curtis. I've read the translation many times. But the kids will hear it in Sanskrit. The "religious" aspect doesn't get transferred to the kids via telepathy. > > > It is the question of teaching religious > > > practices in schools not whether or not you can > > > ignore it. > > > > It isn't taught as a religious practice. We're > > going around in circles. > > Like creation "Science", TM tries a marketing angle > that doesn't fool informed people. You really can't compare the two. The kids aren't studying the puja in science class. > > > Curtis, your experiences as a TM teacher > > > > are a big fat red herring here. TMers don't have to > > > > do any of that unless they decide to become teachers. > > > > > > No it isn't. As a teacher I understand exactly > > > what I am getting an initiate to participate in. > > > > That's in *your* mind, not the student's mind. > > Again, if the kid doesn't know that creation "science" > is from the Bible then it is OK to teach it in schools? The only parallel here would be to the third day of checking, and those principles, as I pointed out earlier, are found in nonreligious contexts as well as religious ones. > > > You have not addressed my most important point > > > that the only participation in a Hindu puja is > > > what the student does in TM instruction. > > > > Boy, I'd hate to think that was really your most > > important point. It's meaningless (except with > > regard to Hindu students). > > And creation "science's" connection with the Bible > is meaningless to any non Christian student? I don't accept that analogy, as noted. > As far as the students > > are concerned, they're paying for instruction in > > a secular technique and bringing fruit, flowers, > > and hankie as a traditional offering of gratitude > > to the person who is about to teach them. > > They are told it is an offering to Guru Dev, it is > not to the teacher. Not what I was told. > It is a traditional Indian Puja with all the beliefs > and practices including the student being invited to > kneel. I'll bet that invitation won't be included in Lynch's program. > I have never been to a puja where people were forced > to do more than people do at a TM instruction puja. > Often the participation is much less. I just don't see the relevance. Hindus' sense of participation in a puja, whatever its extent, doesn't somehow get magically transferred to non-Hindus. > > That Hindus, or the TM teacher, understand a puja > > ceremony differently is just totally irrelevant. > > It doesn't somehow change what's going on in the > > students' minds. > > Again, how is Creation "Science" different if the > student doesn't understand it comes from the Bible? Again, I don't accept that analogy. Too different. We aren't talking about SCI being taught in science class. > > The only way you can make a case, it seems to me, > > is if you yourself are completely convinced that > > something magical happens to the student as a > > result of witnessing the puja, without their > > knowledge or understanding or consent. Somehow I > > don't think that's a case you'd want to make. > > I don't have to believe that the Bible is magical > to know that it shouldn't be used as an alternative > view in science class. The lack of truth of the > religious claims have nothing to do with this issue. Bad analogy. How does the student imbibe an "alternative view" by witnessing the puja? <snip> > > > SCI is the theoretical basis for the practice. > > > You are making an artificial distinction between > > > the length of time of study, the 33 lessons of > > > the now defunct course and the 3 days of checking. > > > But with the 3 day's covering of higher states of > > > consciousness it covers a lot of the same ground, > > > just abbreviated. > > > > *Very* abbreviated. And as I recall, it was all > > just on the third day, the "vision of possibilities." > > The theoretical underpinning is present from the into > lecture on. But not in a religious form. > > It didn't sound religious to me when I sat through > > it. > > A new student is not the proper judge of its content. But the content as it's presented *isn't religious*. It's a little like objecting to kids being taught about the Big Bang because it involves creation *ex nihilo* and Christians believe in creation *ex nihilo* as well, so the Big Bang must be a religious concept and teaching it amounts to religious indoctrination. > I didn't have to draw pictures or repeat > > formulas or take a test. > > Like what religion? Name one that uses that criteria. I was referring to the (mini-)SCI course I took. > It pretty much went in one > > ear and out the other. Took about an hour. > > Gotcha, so if the students don't pay attention we can > teach the Bible in schools. If we just skim through > it real quick like? Bad analogy. > > The level of importance accorded to the third day > > in comparison to the SCI course makes a huge > > difference. Yes, there was a lot of repetition in > > the SCI course, but that's part of the difference-- > > the principles were drummed in. > > So how much religion indoctrination in schools is > too much? How about just one brief point being > made about Christ being our Savior? See, I don't understand SCI as a religious teaching. I can understand how some might, although I think that's a misconception. By the time you get it watered down to what's conveyed in the basic TM course, where it's presented in a totally secular context--abstract principles of the nature and mechanics of consciousness--you just can't *find* any religion in it. Would you consider it wrong to teach kids that they should treat other people the way they'd like to be treated because Jesus is quoted in the Bible as endorsing it? (Not to mention in the scriptures of practically every other religion.) > Especially if the kids are not paying much attention > or we do it in Latin so they can't understand? Do you > think there would be any doubt about the religious > nature of the puja if we sang it in English? Are we talking about the puja or SCI? > > The SCI course could well be considered indoctrination. > > The third day of checking, in contrast, is a brief > > summary of what the TM teacher believes, take it or > > leave it. And I still say it's not intrinsically > > religious--you have to dress it up in religious > > clothing to make it so. The basic, naked principles > > have to do with the nature and mechanics of > > consciousness, which I think of as ontologically > > prior to religion. > > We do not agree on the content of Maharishi's teachings. > He is teaching a Hindu POV with different terms Not just a Hindu POV. It's basic Idealism, as I said earlier. You can integrate Idealism with either a religious or a secular perspective. The basic TM course teaches it (minimally) in a secular context. > so it doesn't upset people who might not believe > that his religious views are ontologically prior > to their own religious beliefs. He's welcome to his religious beliefs. What do they have to do with me? > > (And I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that's how > > MMY thought of it as well. That he did the full- > > blown Hindu thing himself doesn't mean he didn't > > understand it as such.) > > If you hung out with him you might have a different > impression about his views. Whenever he let his hair > down with us he communicated differently from the > stilted marketing language he used for outsiders. It > became more explicitly religious. You couldn't hang > out with him for long without him presiding over a puja > to a Hindu god or goddess. This is a different (and more complicated) issue than the one we've been discussing. That's why I made it a parenthetical. Basically, that he talked about it in religious terms with teachers doesn't mean his ultimate view of it wasn't abstract. The abstract view is pretty dry. Depending on your temperament, it may not be very emotionally satisfying. If you have a bhakti temperament, you may want to feed the abstractions into the religious context of your choice to give them color and emotional juice. But doing so doesn't negate the abstract foundation. >From another post: > If you want to teach kids to meditate in schools > to see if it settles down the little monsters,(it > might) then don't start the process by invoking > the name of a Hindu god in a Hindu Puja before > filling their heads full of religious beliefs > during their meditation class. "Filling their heads full of religious beliefs"?? Curtis, you've jumped the shark.
