--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > <snip> > > Judy (from a post on alt.m.t): > > We've discussed this before here, and TMers chimed in > > about their own initiations; some knelt, some didn't. > > I didn't. There's no pressure to do so. Some who > > had more recently learned TM said there hadn't even > > been an *invitation* to kneel. > > > > ME: > > No one if forced to kneel. But the presumptive motion > > we make as we kneel,indicating that they kneel worked > > every time I used it. I never had anyone in all my > > teaching, not kneel. The impression that some do and > > some don't is a vast overstatement of people who do not. > > It would require a pretty strong oppositional > > personality or a person who had their own religious > > convictions to not go along. > > Must have been lots of 'em on alt.m.t and among the > TMers I knew, then. "Some do, some don't" is not an > overstatement in terms of my observation and that of > others on alt.m.t, including one TM teacher. > > > Judy: > > Even if the student *does* choose to kneel at the end, > > he or she spends most of the ceremony standing off to > > the side, just watching, contrary to the post I was > > responding to which claimed by analogy, falsely, that > > the student was "on his knees" throughout and very > > directly participated. > > > > ME: > > "Just watching" IS how you participate in a Hindu puja. > > "Just watching" is how you participate in a movie, too. > > This argument doesn't work when it involves an *absence* > of active participation, Curtis. Not-doing what Hindus > don't-do doesn't add up to Hindu-type participation. > > > They don't have the call and response deal Christians have. > > Don't have call and response at the movies, either (unless > it's the Rocky Horror Show). > > > Judy: > > Moreover, if the student doesn't show up with fruit and > > handkerchief and flowers, the center usually has a supply on > > hand. > > > > ME: > > I take exception to this. We sent them out to get the stuff > > if they came without it. > > Regardless of what you may have done, I did fruit > and flowers for several weekends at the Manhattan > TM Center, and we always had a supply of fruit and > flowers on hand for people who forgot them. > > > Judy: > > Again, unless the student chooses to kneel at the very end of the > > ceremony, he or she cannot be said to participate in it in any > > way. And even that minimal participation is entirely optional. > > > > Me: > > Now that you know more about traditional Hindu pujas > > you may want to amend this claim. In a Hindu puja, you > > give the priest offerings to be made on your behalf > > and you give him cash for his service. The student > > who is not aware of how pujas are done may be confused > > about their level of participation. > > This argument makes no sense to me whatsoever. As far > as the student is concerned, s/he is not participating. > What the *teacher* thinks is irrelevant to what the > student thinks, unless you want to claim that the > student participates unknowingly via telepathy from the > teacher. > > The notion that because Hindus don't actively > participate in pujas, and TM students don't actively > participate, therefore TM students are participating > without knowing it, strikes me as the most extreme > kind of chop-logic. > > It's like saying that since Americans don't bow > before the U.S. president, and Brits don't bow before > the U.S. president, therefore the Brits are showing > fealty to the U.S. president because they're not doing > what the Americans are not doing. > > > Judy: > > Finally, it isn't even required that the student witness the > > ceremony. Susan Seifert pointed out that she had instructed > > people who were incapable of witnessing it, let alone of kneeling > > at the end. > > > > Me: > > I question this also. > > Take it up with Susan. > > > As a teacher, we believed that the puja had a magical quality. > > Fine. You're welcome to believe whatever you want > to believe. Again, unless you want to claim that > your belief was transferred by telepathy to the student > and therefore the student believed everything you > believed *without being aware of it*, what you believed > is irrelevant. > > <snip> > > Now the student is welcomed to think of it any way > > they want. They can misunderstand everything that > > is going on. They can imagine that the words in > > Sanskrit are the results from the day's horse races > > if they want. But that does not change the religious > > nature of the ceremony, their participation in it or > > the layers of beliefs that support the insistence > > that it is performed every time someone learns TM. > > And I maintain the student is not participating > unless they think they're participating. You might > as well say the student has knelt because you > invited them to even though they never actually > took you up on the invitation. > > > This ceremony of "gratitude" was also prescribed as a > > method for purification of the world around the time > > of Maharishi's death. Teachers in their homes, doing > > pujas every day to magically purify the world. This is > > more reflective of how the movement views the puja > > than the more casual description you have given. > > *For the movement*. Not for the beginning TM student.
Ahh, but our mission was to convert the "beginning TM student" to someone who came to the advanced lectures, attended residence courses, take SCI, get Siddha instrauction, buy various and sundry treatments, etc. etc. Curtis's arguments make no sense to you because allowing yourself to agree with them would mean that you have been participating in a religion all this time. I taught hundreds of people and never once did anyone not kneel. One was a famous football coach who, instead of kneeling on both knees, kneeled down in the classic one knee "coach with clipboard" position. (Always got a kick out of that.) You have the student bring the offerings. If they don't they were told to go back and get them. Where I taught, providing the missing offerings was not an option. They had to bring it. As Curtis mentions, we then give the "prasad" back to the student to enjoy the now "blessed" offering. Teaching without a puja was forbidden, no ifs ands or buts. You can claim all of this is nonsense if you like, but you were not a teacher. It's one thing to isolate one aspect of teaching TM and try to argue the non-religious nature. But when you consider the totality of what we know about the puja, the pretend world government, the yagyas, the mantras representing the essence of Hindu gods....the whole nine yards of it, to claim that TM is not a religion involves the epitome of head in the sand (or even a much darker place) thinking.
