Or perhaps the future will see that TM 'works', but not in the way that the TM organisation gives people to believe it works.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > If history has anything to say, > > If history had anything to say, it wouldn't keep > repeating itself. :-) > > > > what I think you're "feeling" in > > > revering Shakerisms is the same thing you try to > > > promote here on FFL, Doug -- a sense of "community." > > > > Not revering, just observing. Just proactive interest. > > > > Not just Shakerisms. > > Not revering but steeping some little in 18th and 19th > > Century American spiritual movements and their European > > and Eastern roots. > > With all due respect, I think we can safely say > that any "Eastern roots" you see in early American > spiritual traditions were projected there. No such > influence would have been possible or tolerated. > > > Is a lot of descriptive material available and some that > > is proscriptive, that can be learned from about life of > > spiritual movements. The proscriptive insights they give > > in their own voice can be a useful perspective to how it > > is going for Transcendental Meditation. > > That is true. And I think that as much can be learned > from the failures of previous spiritual movements as > can be learned from their successes. For example, if > a community such as Shakerism felt that they had "The > Answer" to a happy life but died out within a century, > there is something to be learned from that. If the > reclusive, divorce-ourselves-from-the-outside-world > communities tended to fade out and disappear (as they > did), that might in fact bode badly for the TMO. > > Clearly, I enjoy tripping on past spiritual movements > as well. I am quite taken with the Cathars and their > lifestyle, even though their dualist philosophy is > 180 degrees opposed to my own. I think one can learn > some valuable lessons from how they lived, and what > happened to them as a result of living that way. > > The same is obviously true about early American com- > munities. America's whole *myth* revolves around the > idea of religious freedom -- a place where you can > go and really *act out* your beliefs, no matter how > oddball and non-mainstream they are. That was not > permitted in Europe, so many came to America hoping > to create communities that reflected their beliefs. > I guess my only point in jumping in to your posts > about the Shakers is that if you're going to "learn > from history," one of the lessons you shouldn't > ignore is whether the spiritual community you're > studying is still around. If it isn't -- for what- > ever reason -- there is probably as much to be > learned from *that* history as there is from a > study of what they believed. > > If the TM movement is still around in a hundred years, > historians will be interested in what they believed. > If it isn't, they will be interested more in why what > they believed didn't work. >
