Very interesting response, one that could open up some new lines of discussion of this topic. I'm going to quote it in full, with some additional questions at the end.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Just for fun... > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > I don't know why it hasn't occurred to me > > before, but I'd genuinely like to hear from Barry > > as to how he viewed the purportedly religious > > nature of TM when he was with the TMO. He's made > > it clear how allergic he is to any kind of > > religious thinking these days, and as his comments > > to Vaj indicate, he's completely convinced TM is > > a religion. > > > > So was he inclined to religious belief when he > > was a TM teacher but has since lost that > > inclination? Or did he feel about religion then > > the way he feels now, and simply found a way not > > to let the religious component bother him? Or was > > he not even *aware* of the religious component at > > the time? > > I will answer as honestly as I can, as if > Judy really deserved an answer. And I think > you all know that I don't believe she does, > so this should be viewed as an exercise in > compassion for me. :-) (Incapable of responding without snark. How sad. But also hilarious, because it was just a week or so ago that Barry was railing against the very concept of "deserving.") > It's actually a little hard for me to think > back to those days. It's 3-4 decades in the > past now, after all. *At the time*, I almost > certainly never thought of what I was doing > or what I was involved with as a religion. > I think I can say that with complete honesty. > > WHY? Well, partly it was because of the TM > Is Not A Religion Religion thing. We were > *told* so often and so forcefully that TM > was not a religion that I just bought it. > Partly it was because I had no *interest* in > religion per se, so I wasn't looking for it > or a substitute for it in TM, or in the TMO. > What I was looking for was a method of self > discovery, which I did not and still DO not > associate with religion. > > And most importantly, it was probably because > as a TM Teacher I had been taught that the > "highest goal" was to parrot what I had been > told EXACTLY, without deviation. And I had > been told over and over and over not only that > "TM is not a religion," I had been told what > to say to people who were worried that it WAS > a religion. So I did exactly that. > > I never "got off" on the puja or on "devotion" > to Maharishi or Guru Dev. For me, that was > just mood-making muck I had to wade through to > be part of something that *at the time* I > believed in enough to teach, full-time. > > But yes, towards the end of my involvement > with the TM movement, I *had* begun to "think > past" these enormous Bullshit Baffles, and had > started to have qualms about the stuff I was > saying. I remember having been asked by Jerry > Jarvis to go to a Christian church in Pacific > Palisades to attend an anti-TM rally there. > (This was during the TM court case days.) At > that meeting I actually stood up and spouted > the lines I had been told to spout. And because > I was a pretty good speaker at that time, I > probably convinced a few people in the audience. > But driving home, I realized that *I* was no > longer convinced myself. > > I was just spouting stuff I'd been told to > spout. I was being a parrot, without ever > thinking seriously about the parrot-talk. This > was shortly before my last TM course (Siddhis), > and I finally did some thinking there, and began > to realize how MUCH of the stuff I'd been spout- > ing was bullshit, and that that made me a bull- > shitter, not a teacher of self discovery. Shortly > after returning from that course I bailed out of > the TM movement. > > I have NEVER been drawn to religion. Still am not. > What I was drawn to in TM was the same thing I > was drawn to in psychedelics -- an inner journey, > an opportunity to *explore* the mind and its > mysteries, and to experience different states of > consciousness. I did not and still DO not equate > that with religion. In fact, I find that the vast > majority of religions -- modern and ancient -- > strove to *prevent* that kind of inner exploration > rather than facilitate it. > > That is, most religions are "anti-mystic." Almost > all of them were FOUNDED by mystics, but within a > few years or decades of the original mystic's > death, dogma creeps into place that says that it > was OK for the founder to be a mystic and have > these mystical experiences himself, but "everyday > seekers" like you and me can't do it. > > In fact, if we try, we are often expelled from > the religion. Just look at the Catholic Church -- > many if not most of the people it now considers > saints were persecuted *by the Church* during > their lifetimes, because they were having mystical > experiences that *they shouldn't have been having*. > It was only after they were safely dead that the > Church recognized them as "saints." They tried > to burn St. John of the Cross at the stake, > ferchrissakes...and then they name him a *saint*? > > So no, Judy, I've never been religious. And yes, > I have always viewed most religion as the *anti- > thesis* of self discovery. Still do. Total agreement. If I could follow up: But you now believe that TM is a religion, not a means of self-discovery? Because it seems that for a few years, at least, you were having the experience of self-discovery as a result of the practice. What if you had learned TM and continued to meditate but never became a TM teacher or went any further with the techniques or teachings? Would you ever have come to be uncomfortable with the practice because you felt it was religious? If you had stuck with basic TM but then read the translation of the puja years later and been told the mantras were the names of Hindu deities, would that have soured you on the practice? Would it have become less about self-discovery for you? You say, "The vast majority of religions -- modern and ancient -- strove to *prevent* that kind of inner exploration rather than facilitate it." Would it be fair to say Hinduism is one of the minority of religions that still strives to facilitate inner exploration?
