--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the response. Comments below. > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Would it have > > > > become less about self-discovery for you? > > > > > > No. It would have been irrelevant. > > > > > > But it would not have been irrelevant to, say, > > > the former Catholic priest who shared a trailer > > > with me at Humboldt. > > > > (This was what, a rounding course? TTC? Neither?) > > That would have been one of the big summer > month-long residence courses before I became > a TM teacher, probably in 1970 or 1971 or > thereabouts. (I have a really shitty memory > for "year dates." I tend to remember time > by the album that was popular at the time.) > > > > If the origin and the > > > nature of the mantras had not been hidden from > > > him, he would never have begun TM. Some months > > > later, he *did* learn about those origins, > > > and dropped TM like a hot potato. He also > > > felt betrayed and lied to. > > > > > > That's because IMO he *was* betrayed and lied > > > to, by people like yourself who were trying to > > > "protect" him from knowledge he "didn't need" > > > to know. > > > > See, here's my problem. If a former priest could > > go this far--to the extent of attending a > > residential course taught by MMY--without having > > any suspicion that there was anything religious > > about it, *how religious could what he was being > > taught have been*? > > He was a *former* priest,
I think that's what I just said... searching for > fulfillment in meditation what he never > found in the Church. He bought the TMO's > "not religious" line hook, line, and > sinker. Although an apostate from the > priesthood, he was nonetheless strongly > Catholic. That doesn't answer my question. If he could get that far with TM without suspecting it was religious, *how religious could what he have learned in the TM context have been*? > > And he was getting a lot more of the SCI-type > > stuff than Lynch's kids will. > > That is *NOT* a given. You seem to be > one of the only people on this forum who > actually believes it. I haven't heard that a month-long rounding course is going to be part of the deal with Lynch's project, have you? > > What exactly *did* he later learn about the > > mantras and their origins? Was he told they > > were the "names of Hindu gods"? Or just that > > Hindus associated them with gods? > > The latter. And then he saw the translation > of the puja, in which *his TM teacher* had > bowed down to those same gods, and asked him > to do so, too. And he did. > > He wouldn't have, if he had known what he > was bowing down to. What *did* he think he was kneeling (not bowing down) to? > > > Did he do any > > research into the origins of the bija mantras? > > Did he come to believe he had been invoking > > actual supernatural beings? > > I don't know. He wrote to me expressing his > disappointment in having been lied to so > thoroughly by his own TM teacher, who I knew. > I agreed with him in a return letter, but I > never heard back. > > > This kind of thing just makes no sense to me. > > That is probably because, like me, you never > felt strongly enough about any religion to > be upset if you had been tricked into violating > its commandments. That's certainly part of it. But even if I *did* feel strongly about a religion, I think it's entirely possible that I'd have come to the same understanding I have now, i.e., that religious mythology is, or was originally, very largely a system of *metaphors* for the nature and mechanics of consciousness. You pointed out earlier that what were once systems of self-development harden into dogma. In my view, that happens when their techniques for self-development get lost or suppressed so that the referents of the metaphors are no longer accessible. At that point the metaphors begin to be taken concretely or literally, and the result is dogma. So what's kneeling or bowing down a metaphor for? In the context of the puja, IMHO, it's getting the "small self" out of the way; it's a physical posture that represents transcending. (Similarly with the first advanced technique, but in a much more potent form.) There's a lot more to this line of thinking than I've written, BTW. > > It seems to me that the outrage is a function > > of getting only *part* of the picture beyond > > what you get in the basic TM course. > > The outrage in this case was at having been > tricked into getting down on his knees and > bowing to Hindu gods. > > That would not *bother* you. It would not > bother *me*. It does not bother me still. > > I am making the case for those who *would* > be bothered by it. They have the right to > know what they are being asked to kneel to. But see above. If I'm right, they should have no problem with it. Again, I think *partial* knowledge can be very misleading. According to Tony Nader, the Hindu "deities" are actually aspects of one's own consciousness, processes of knowing. > Now, since I have been indulging your ques- > tions, please indulge one of mine. Would you > have any objections to attendees at the up- > coming McCartney concert being handed a > flyer containing only the English translation > of the TM puja -- no commentary, only a sim- > ple explanation that this was a translation > of the ceremony their kids would be witnessing > and asked at the end to participate in by > kneeling down -- as they went into the concert? YES, I'd object, because it would be misleading. As I said in my previous post: What I would like above all would be for folks to have the *complete* picture. It wouldn't satisfy the fundamentalist types, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that a good portion of the more reasonable folks, including many nonfundamentalist religionists, would realize the "Hindu origins" bit is just not significant. But there's *no way* people can ever have the complete picture without really getting into it, including plenty of experience of the technique. In between virtually no information about TM's origins and context and full information, there's a big swath of *partial* information that is essentially misleading. If one thinks practice of the TM technique is highly beneficial for most people, and conveying full information isn't a practical option, what does one do?
