BTW, based on past exchanges I anticipate a chorus of non-TM teachers saying, "Buh...buh...but the TM teachers *I* knew didn't just parrot things. They came up with a lot of the things they said on their own."
My question to such folks is, "How would you know?" YOU didn't have access to the courses and the tapes that these teachers did. How would you "know" whether the things they said were their own, or merely being repeated from having heard them from some tape or some course somewhere? I'd love to hear you explain this... :-) --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > As some here may have noticed :-), I have a problem with one of the > buzz-phrases that Maharishi used when training teachers of TM. That > phrase is, "Every question is the perfect opportunity for the answer we > have already prepared." > > I'm sure he liked this idea for several reasons. The first is that it > implied to the wannabee teachers that even though they *knew* that their > personal experience with meditation, let alone with higher states of > consciousness, did not qualify them to be teachers, if they just > memorized enough stuff, they would be prepared for any question that > might arise. The second, of course, is that it reinforced Maharishi's > ideas of "maintaining the purity of the teaching," his interpretation of > which was that his teachers mainly parrot his words, so as not to make > any of them "impure" by adding or subtracting anything. The third is > that he -- doing essentially the same thing by repeating the things he'd > been taught -- possibly knew no other way to teach. He preferred to > train his teachers as parrots performing a kind "synthetic" teaching by > mindlessly repeating the teachings of others. Because that's what *he* > had been. > > There are other ways to teach. > > Segue to the experience of actually teaching TM. Many of the most > vociferous "TM supporters" on this forum have never had this experience, > so I expect them to wisely keep out of this discussion. Yeah, > right...like that's gonna happen. :-) > > Many TM teachers -- both those I've encountered in real life and those > I've run into in cyberspace -- feel that the part of teaching TM they > liked best was the synthetic, by-the-numbers part. Giving intro > lectures, exactly the way that they'd been taught to give them. > Performing the puja and actually teaching TM to someone, repeating the > words of the puja and the steps of initiation *exactly* as they'd been > taught to do. Or doing the three nights of checking, again just as > they'd been taught. > > All of this was neat, I guess, but I wasn't as into it as many other TM > teachers were. What I liked were the "advanced lectures," either at > center meetings on on residence courses. Even though I now know that not > a single one of them I ever gave was in any sense "advanced" -- more > like "advanced kindergarten" as opposed to really "advanced" -- I had > more fun with them because they allowed for a more interesting form of > the teaching process: synthesis. > > Synthesis I define to some extent as "reversing the flow" of spiritual > learning. Instead of kicking back and "taking it all in" from some > supposed expert or authority, you allow all the data bits you've taken > in over the years to percolate inside you, to "mix and match" with other > data bits you've heard from other sources or discovered in your own > meditations or spiritual experiences, and then you "reverse the flow" > and send them out to the world. It's a real high, in a way that merely > parroting someone else's thoughts and words is not. > > This would happen to some extent when thinking up the talks themselves > -- choosing a subject, researching it, and putting it into a proper > order for presentation. I had FUN with some of the topics I came up > with, and became notorious in the Western Region for talks such as "SCI > and Sci-Fi." > > But the most fun for me was answering questions. For me, *not* every > question was the perfect opportunity to parrot the answer I'd already > prepared. In fact, when some of the questions were asked, I'd realize > that I had no earthly idea how to answer them. > > But then an answer would form. Because I was still a TB, none of these > answers deviated in any significant way from the canned, synthetic > answers Maharishi preferred, but they were *my* answers, based on a > combination of things he'd said, things I'd read, and things I'd > experienced. Feeling the answers formulate themselves inside me was a > fun kind of "frog in a blender" experience; I could literally *feel* > them "coming together," and forming into something cohesive. And they > must not have been the most off the wall answers in the world, much less > Off The Program answers, because I became considered one of the best > lecturers on the West Coast. Jerry Jarvis consistently asked me to do > "guest spots" in TM centers and on residence courses. Which is NOT a way > of tooting my own horn, just a way of pointing out that one can deviate > from the "prepared answers" without deviating from the teaching. > > I have run into many TM teachers who never had this experience, and I > feel for them. They were either denied or denied themselves one of the > great "highs" of the spiritual teaching process -- the *inner* process > of feeling it all come together inside you into a *new* way of seeing > things or expressing them, one that you'd never been given by anyone as > a "prepared answer." Synthesis, as opposed to being somewhat synthetic. > > It was *such* a high for me that at one point I dumped TM and the TM > organization and Maharishi entirely, and "followed my bliss" in the > direction of more insights that I could come up with myself and express > the way I wanted to, rather than searching for "prepared answers" from > some teacher or tradition. I'm still doing it, and don't regret a minute > of it. Your mileage may vary. >
