Checks in the envelope . . where to mail it!
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Arhata Osho
<arhatafreespeech@ ...> wrote:
>
> Outsiders have no clue what TM means let alone the infinite amount of
> meditations> available. Take a poll of 'meditators' (including Yoga people),
> and they have 0 interest!
But if they forked over $2,500 they could get the HIGHEST teaching! You must
convince them that whatever they are doing is only a relative benefit and lacks
the mega mojo of full blown TM mantra meditation. If you can't get them to
fork over the cash please at least see if you can get them to feel badly about
their own practice. Maharishi will bless you for this. (By bless I mean ignore
which is how he blessed the rest of us.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend" <jstein@>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > 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?
>
>
>
> I believe that many in the TM movement have
>
> turned basic TM into a religion, one that has
>
> something but not everything to do with its
>
> origins *as* a religious technique. I believe
>
> that the environment of the *TMO* is very
>
> definitely religious in nature currently, and
>
> is actively seeking to hide that.
>
>
>
> > Because it seems that for
>
> > a few years, at least, you were having the
>
> > experience of self-discovery as a result of the
>
> > practice.
>
>
>
> I was pursuing my own self discovery while
>
> practicing the TM technique. I am not con-
>
> vinced that all of the "discovery" happened
>
> "as a result" of that practice. In fact, I
>
> think that a lot of it just happened, similar
>
> to the way that shit just happens.
>
>
>
> *At the time*, I would have "credited" TM
>
> for those experiences; now I would not and
>
> do not.
>
>
>
> I am trying to be as precise as I possibly
>
> can here.
>
>
>
> > 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 I had never become a TM teacher, I am
>
> fairly confident that I would have given
>
> up on the TM technique at the five-year mark.
>
> One of my reasons for attending TM Teacher
>
> Training was to either "jumpstart" the tech-
>
> nique such that I began perceived sufficient
>
> benefits from TM to continue practicing it,
>
> or quit altogether. The jumpstart worked,
>
> for a number of years, but then when I no
>
> longer perceived sufficient benefit, I quit.
>
>
>
> I did NOT stop TM because I thought it was
>
> religious. I stopped primarly because as
>
> far as I could tell it was doing nothing
>
> to further my self discovery.
>
>
>
> Secondarily, I guit because as a TM teacher
>
> I was being asked to lie and do other things
>
> on a regular basis that I found to be con-
>
> trary to my own ethics and repulsive to my
>
> values.
>
>
>
> Thirdly, I quit because the TM movement was
>
> clearly going in a direction I did not want
>
> to go -- towards becoming more of a cult,
>
> and away from openness and transparency. The
>
> question of whether that "direction" was in
>
> the direction of becoming more of a religion
>
> would not and did not occur to me. It was
>
> just no longer an organization I wanted to
>
> be associated with.
>
>
>
> > 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?
>
>
>
> No. Not me personally. It would have soured
>
> some friends who *started* from a fairly
>
> religious background; I did not. At the time,
>
> all I would have cared about was that it
>
> seemed to work.
>
>
>
> I now see that "seeming to work" period as
>
> more of a *contrast* between my life up till
>
> then, practicing no form of meditation reg-
>
> ularly, and then practicing *some* form of
>
> meditation regularly. *Of course* I felt
>
> some benefits at the start. When I stopped
>
> feeling those benefits, I moved on and found
>
> other techniques from which the sense of them
>
> "working" and providing continuing benefits
>
> did not "fade" and has not faded in any of
>
> the years since.
>
>
>
> > 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. 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.
>
>
>
> > 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?
>
>
>
> Absolutely not, not in my opinion. Mainstream
>
> Hinduism *in India* probably attempts to limit
>
> and prevent the mystical experience as much as
>
> the Catholic Church does, and stresses faith
>
> more than anything else. But many of the "off-
>
> spring" of Indian Hinduism, transplanted to
>
> the West, found that Westerners were more
>
> interested in inner exploration than they were
>
> in faith, and so it became more of the focus
>
> of their teachings.
>
>
>
> Westerners had -- in the 50s and 60s -- Had It
>
> Up To Here with faith. They didn't WANT any
>
> organization or teaching that required them to
>
> have faith. They wanted EXPERIENCE. That, IMO,
>
> was one of the reasons for the psychedelic
>
> revolution in the 60s.
>
>
>
> Yoga, transplanted to the West, and meditation,
>
> transplanted to the West by Yogananda and MMY
>
> others, appealed to that desire for experience.
>
> Maharishi, in my opinion, provided a "baby
>
> steps" technique of meditation that could
>
> provide a little of that experience, hoping
>
> that Westerners would *settle* for a little,
>
> and for "baby steps."
>
>
>
> They did not. When (from my perspective, having
>
> been there at the time, whereas you were not)
>
> large numbers of TMers and TM Teachers began
>
> to *leave* the TM movement, feeling that they
>
> had "plateaued out" on the baby steps technique
>
> of TM, Maharishi introduced the siddhis, to try
>
> to keep them around. That worked on some. It
>
> did not work on me. I took the course and con-
>
> sidered it Just Another Baby Step. I was looking
>
> for something more, and left in search of it.
>
>
>
> Others found *enough* in TM and the siddhis to
>
> stick around. Or to stick around longer than I
>
> did. Some are happy with what they learned from
>
> Maharishi to this day. I am happy for them if
>
> they feel that way.
>
>
>
> Me, I needed more, and went in search of it,
>
> and from my point of view found it. The issue
>
> of whether TM and the TMO constituted a religion
>
> were NEVER a part of my decision to "go forth"
>
> in search of something more.
>
>
>
> However, for the former priest who shared my
>
> trailer at that Humboldt course, NO AMOUNT
>
> of "payoff" from TM would have enticed him to
>
> stick around once he found out the origin of
>
> the mantras and the translation of the puja.
>
> He would not have trusted Maharishi or any
>
> of the members of the TM movement if they
>
> told him the time of day, much less that they
>
> had his "best interests" in mind by hiding
>
> this information from him originally.
>
>
>
> So, bottom line, the issue of whether TM or
>
> the TMO were a religion had nothing to do with
>
> *MY* walking away from TM. But that issue was
>
> and will continue to be important to those
>
> who feel a loyalty to a particular religion,
>
> and later find that information was hidden
>
> from them that caused them to (in their own
>
> eyes) violate the tenets of that religion.
>
>
>
> That is essentially what you have been advo-
>
> cating lately.
>
