--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > TM is a delicate practice of innocence. If doubt > > festers about one's practice, a bottomless pit of > > questions escalates anger and destroys innocence. > > Raunchy, I have to leap in here, *not* to > give you a hard time or "squish you like a > bug," but to hopefully remind you of some- > thing. > > Your two sentences above WERE TAUGHT > TO YOU. > > By Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and by the TMO. > > They are NOT "standard" in all forms of > meditation and self discovery. > > In many forms of meditative practice and > self discovery, doubt is seen as an integral > and very valuable part of that discovery. > > Doubt, rather than being demonized as it was > above, is not only not stifled, but encouraged. > The thinking seems to be, "If our world view > does not hold up in the face of doubt, then > there is something wrong with our world view. > We should be open to changing that." > > That -- essentially -- is what the Dalai Lama > said when he said that if the findings of > modern science conflict with the teachings > of Buddhism, it's *Buddhism* that has to > change. > > Compare and contrast to the teachings you > parroted above. > > > A question masks an irritation, an itch you just > > can't scratch. > > And? > > Raunchy, what you are echoing above is Maharishi's > phrase, "Every question is a perfect opportunity > for the answer we have already prepared." > > That's not how "knowledge" or even questions and > answers are handled everywhere in the smorgasbord > of self discovery. There are some forms of self > discovery that do not feel compelled to provide > an answer that they have already prepared for every > question, and expect it to *silence the questioner*. > > Above you are demonizing the person who has...uh... > questions. You are portraying them as flawed, angry, > *damaged*, as opposed to the person who just accepts > the little he or she has been told and is content > with it. Or, the person who -- when he or she *does* > ask a question -- is content with the first answer, > and drops the question. > > Raunchy, I'm going into this in some depth because > you really don't seem to understand that your whole > post was about presenting a case for "dropping the > question." It was an apologia for STFU. > I'm not against a doubter asking questions, ask away. I'm just pointing out the consequences of frustrating yourself with endless questions that will never satisfy no matter how many questions you have. At some point, you just have to pack it in and conclude, "Yep, TM is not as complicated as I was trying to make it," or "TM sucks, I quit." Choosing the latter was never an option for me. I like TM so I've made peace with TM and the TMO instead of making myself crazy with complaints. Lord knows, I've had plenty of complaints about the TMO for many years, but it has never interfered with my love for the practice. I've reconciled my itch and I think that's a good thing. If folks still have an itch, well, it can't be that comfortable, just saying.
Maharishi often invited questions. I never had a chance to ask him anything directly, but I do remember driving my SCI teacher, Tom Miller, crazy with questions to the point of detecting, occasionally, a slight sputter of frustration. I love how he put up with me but it never entered my mind that I should quit TM because I wasn't satisfied with his answers. Many questions about one's practice are predictable. "What should I do, if I don't have time to meditate?" Answer: "Even the busy business man finds time to meditate. He goes to the bank so he can enjoy the marketplace." Or, "Water the root to enjoy the fruit." Maharishi taught pat answers designed to encourage the meditator to continue practice. I don't see anything wrong with that. I learned the answers to as many questions as I could to help people enjoy an innocent practice. I don't imagine I could have thought up the answers to meditator questions on my own. I trusted Maharishi for that and I'm glad I did. I probably helped many people to stay innocent in their practice by being an innocent parrot. I remember Maharishi saying initiators were like loud speakers of TM. Since I'm not interested in being a guru of a meditation technique I dreamed up, I'm content I don't have to make shit up to answer a question simple question about TM. If someone wants to get into a mind fuck about it, well, have at it. > > Some folks are just naturally itchier than others are. They > > can't help it. > > And that makes them "lower" or "less" than those of > us who have accepted whatever we were told *without* > question? You're not "itchy." You're not "irritable." :-) > > > I wonder if irritable folks could just get past those pesky > > questions long enough to do enough TM regularly, they just > > might be a little less crabby about TM. Maybe not, it didn't > > seem to work out that way for Edg. > > It didn't seem to work out that way for me, either. > Or is fourteen years not "enough" time to do TM > regularly? > > Raunchy, LOOK AROUND. You have been presented > with statistics on this forum suggesting that not > only do MOST people give up on TM, up to 90% of > those learning give up on TM. > > Doncha think a few of them might still be around > if someone had treated their questions as if those > questions were valid and valuable, and not Off The > Program and indicators of "irritation?" > > > Maharishi did everything he could to answer questions for > > the sake of innocent practice. > > Maharishi did everything he could to provide the > answers he had already prepared. > > > For a few, no matter what he said, it wasn't going to be > > good enough. > > Why was it "good enough" for YOU? What made you > not *only* STFU and stop asking questions, but > get on a soapbox to demonize those who didn't? > > > It's interesting that as long as Barry blithely meditated > > for "self-discovery"...no problem...TM was just fine by him. > > Too bad, he became a teacher and he let cognitive dissonance > > bamboozled his innocence. Although I'm sure he probably sees > > it as a victory over evil. > > No, he sees it as never having done what you did > and stopped asking questions. > > > Marooned on an island and never knowing anything about TM > > except innocent practice, would Barry still practice TM... > > Absolutely not. > > There would not have been enough "payoff" in it > for me to continue practicing it. > > > ...or would he have found a way to talk himself out of > > it, hankering to attend church regularly and ask God's > > forgiveness him for practicing Hinduism? > > Where is Judy with her screech about "Fantasy!" > when you need her? :-) > > Raunchy, even YOU know how off the mark that is > as a demonization of me. > > > I guess you just can't do much about karma. Peace, Brother Barry. > > And to you, Raunchy. > > I really *DO* understand (because I've been there) > that you really *DO* believe that doubt is a Bad > Thing. > > And I really *DO* understand (because again I've > been there) that you really *DO* believe that > that telling doubters to STFU is a "favor." > > But there is a karma in that, too. > > And the TMO is reaping it. >
