--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > <Well, including TM for those privy to the "secret > > > teachings," but not including TM for the ordinary TMer, > > > who, in my experience, was told most emphatically that > > > the value of TM was one's experience in activity, not > > > one's experience during meditation.> > > > > > > You are mixing up two very distinct levels of the teaching > > > here. One is the instruction to meditators not to try to > > > manipulate their practice during the practice by preferring > > > any experience over another during the practice, or worrying > > > about it afterwards. > > > > Oh, that's funny, Curtis. No, I wasn't even thinking > > of this. > > > > > But the fact that our practice has experiential goals, > > > especially after you have been doing it for a while and > > > in an advanced group context is pretty obvious. > > > > Of course the practice has experiential goals. They're > > obvious from the start; they're why people take up TM in > > the first place: > > > > "During the TM technique, the mind settles down effortlessly, > > experiencing quieter and quieter levels of thought. From > > time to time, the mind transcendsor "goes beyond"thought > > to the state of pure consciousness. As you continue to > > meditate 20 minutes twice a day, the qualities of that > > stateserenity, steadiness, harmonypermeate your life. > > Research indicates that the practice of the TM technique > > increases calmness and decreases stress." > > > > http://www.tm.org/inner-peace > > > > "The Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique provides > > access to the profound silence of the inner Self that > > is deep inside everyone. With regular meditation, the > > peacefulness and bliss of that inner experience is > > naturally integrated into daily living leading to an > > enlightened life with a fully developed heart, mind > > and soul." > > > > http://www.tm.org/enlightenment > > > > And of course better health, decreased anxiety, greater > > productivity, improved relationships, etc., etc., etc. > > All goals that have to do with experience in activity, > > not just during meditation. > > Once again you have sifted the discussion level > inappropriately to the brochure level: how how TM is > sold to the public. I would say that this tendency > has plagued our discussions from the very first days > of our interaction. I bring up a point from the > perspective of an insider, and you try to show how it > is different from what is shown on the brochures.
Oh, jeez, Curtis. One of your biggest problems is that it doesn't occur to you that you're going to be called on it when you try to distort a discussion and shift the context to one you're more comfortable dealing with. When you cite "insider" teachings as if they're what everyone who learns TM is taught, as you did in this case, you're durn tootin' I'm going to point out what you're doing, especially if you're addressing your remarks to a non-TMer. What I quoted from the Web site about the goals of TM is what I was *always* taught, not just at the beginning. > The goal of Maharishi's programs was a state of > consciousness. He sold it to the West in a form he > thought they could relate to: benefits in activity. > What activity enhancement do you think Tat Walla Baba > was expressing sitting in his cave? It was his state > of consciousness that Maharishi admired and it was > developing this state of consciousness in us that was > his goal. As I've said a couple of times now, that may have been what he secretly taught to "insiders," but for rank-and- file non-teacher TMers (as you know), the goal was to develop this state of consciousness and live our active householder lives in it--not go sit in a cave. > > > Do you mean you were never on a course where you rated > > > your experiences with A, B and C for how clear your > > > transcending was and how much time you spent there? > > > > Actually, no, I wasn't. Went on lots of courses, too. > > (Last WPA I was on was sometime in 1995, so it's been > > awhile.) > > Well then you really don't have the experiential basis > to criticize what I wrote. Complete non sequitur. I didn't criticize what you said about what your experience was. More attempted context- shifting. > > > Are you unclear that the goals of Maharishi's meditaiton > > > are clear transcending, witnessing transcending, witnessing > > > the celestial level, realizing that what you are > > > experiencing as outside you is actually the same > > > unboundeness as your own Self, having that thread of unity > > > woven into the cloth of Brahaman as even those things not > > > directly perceived are enveloped by your Self...it goes on. > > > > I'm very clear that what *I* was taught was that the > > goal of Maharishi's meditation was enlightenment, not > > the neat experiences one may have while practicing it > > as an end in themselves. > > "Neat" experiences is not what I am talking about. Whatever adjective you want to use is fine with me. > There are many guideposts in Maharishi's system to > gaining enlightenment and on many courses I attended > they were minutely analyzed. Not in contradiction > to the higher goal, but as a way to understand the > path in detail. Sure. I got quite a bit of that on my courses. > > > When you only write from the perspective of how a no > > > meditator or new meditator might misunderstand something > > > you are not writing authentically from your own > > > experience as I am. You are filtering it through some PR > > > concern. > > > > "PR concern" is weasel wording when we're talking about > > apparently factual statements that are potentially > > misleading to non- or new meditators. > > I believe it is accurate. You are trying to spin what > I wrote in a certain way. I am correcting the spin you attempted to give that "the goal of the practice [was] to have the experiences I was having" in meditation, when in fact that is not what rank-and-filers are taught is the goal of the practice. > You are welcome to do it, but it appears like a PR > concern to me. As I said, "PR concern" is a weasel phrase you are using to refer to correcting a misleading impression. > As Emily confirmed, she knows that when I post it is > from my POV on Maharishi and his teaching. How could it > be otherwise? So cute the way you try to make it seem that Emily is my only concern. > > > If we can't let it all hang out here and discuss what > > > we really think about this practice here, where could we? > > > > Curtis, your context-shifting doesn't work on me any > > more, hasn't in quite some time. Nobody's objecting to > > discussing what we really think about the practice. > > And your accusations of me "context-shifting" doesn't > work on me anymore. They never did "work" on you; that's not the point. The point is to let you know I know it's what you're doing and am not falling for it. > > > Judy > > > > Oh, please, Curtis, you don't limit yourself to your own > > > > POV here, including in this exchange. Just for one example, > > > > above you write, "It was the goal of the practice to have > > > > the experiences I was having." And you refer to what you're > > > > questioning as "the whole goal of the yoga systems including > > > > TM." Those are statements made as if of established fact. And > > > > they may *be* established fact. My point is that you make > > > > factual statements as well as POV statements, but some of > > > > your POV statements are indistinguishable from your factual > > > > statements. > > > > > > I don't believe your distinction holds up. Obviously as > > > a trained teacher of TM and MIU grad I have confidence > > > in my POV about his teaching. But I am not representing > > > the organization here. (Or anywhere) So I can believe > > > something I am stating is a fact but I would never expect > > > anyone else to just take it on face value. I am quite > > > obviously viewing the system from outside of it in my own > > > original way. That influences everything I say here. So > > > for someone to take what I write as the definitive > > > statement of fact about the teaching would be pretty > > > idiotic. > > > > This is *such* a weird set of non sequiturs, especially > > since you've made a bunch of what are obviously intended > > to be definitive statements of fact about the teaching > > in this very post. (The main thrust, that having > > experiences during meditation is more important than > > one's experience in activity, is--and I'll say this as > > a definitive statement of fact about the teaching-- > > simply not accurate in terms of what *I* was taught.) > > I never said that. "It was the goal of the practice to have the experiences I was having"--in meditation, according to you, rushing through activity to get to do your program, remember? > You are missing the distinctions I am making. And as > long as you stay stuck in the most superficial brochure > presentation of Maharishi's teaching you are not gunna > get my point. You know this is bullshit, I know it's bullshit, anyone reading this with half a brain knows it's bullshit. > The experience of enlightenment IN activity is the goal > of the practice. YES, thank you. That's been my point all along. If you had acknowledged it to start with, this would have been a much shorter discussion. > But not so you can jump higher and run faster ultimately, > that is brochure perspective. It is to realize the goal > of human life as a realized human in Maharishi's system. Oh, you mean like this? "The Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique provides access to the profound silence of the inner Self that is deep inside everyone. With regular meditation, the peacefulness and bliss of that inner experience is naturally integrated into daily living leading to an enlightened life with a fully developed heart, mind and soul." > He was teaching a yoga system in the West and tried to > spin it so the shit for brains (in his perspective) > Westerners could relate to his practice after finding > out that he wasn't pulling in enough rich people with > his spiritual speal. (Spiel.) Incredible. I guess somebody forgot and left the spiritual spiel I just quoted up on the TM.org Web site, huh? (Here's where Curtis bows out of the discussion.) > Are you unaware of the development of the movement from > SRM to IMS? No. > > But this is a tangent from my original objection to > > what you had written to Emily, in which you both > > gave your own POV, clearly identified as such, *and* > > made what you clearly intended to be read as > > statements of fact about the human nervous system > > and how it responded to TM. That's the distinction > > I was making above. > > Statements of fact about the human nervous system? Statements you intended to be read as fact about the human nervous system. > You think I need to qualify any statement I make about > this as being my POV? There's quite a bit of science these days about the human nervous system. Since you often cite science, you need to make a distinction when you're citing your own speculations rather than scientific fact. > I think you are grabbing at straws here Judy. I get it > that you don't like my conclusions but you are just being > silly here. Translation: I'm stuck. Time to shift the context again. > And you are derailing what could be an interesting > discussion into tedious nit-picking...again. No, you've done that. And are continuing to do it. > > Where Maharishi's teaching comes in is with such > > assertions as "It was the goal of the practice to > > have the experiences I was having," and that you > > were questioning "the whole goal of the yoga systems > > including TM." > > > > This kind of thing is only a subset of what I was > > objecting to, not the whole deal by any means. We > > can certainly discuss it on its own terms, but it > > doesn't encompass the whole of the issue I was > > raising. > > > > > And it was always like this even when Maharishi was alive. > > > There was no one person other than him who held the > > > authority to speak for him without the caveat that we > > > were all doing the best we could from whatever the level > > > of consciousness we were in. As soon as you move off the > > > memorized scripts used in teaching and checking, you were > > > in the world of "not Maharishi". > > > > OK, so do you acknowledge that what I just quoted above > > is in the world of "not Maharishi"? (And *explicitly* > > "not Maharishi," given that it contradicts what's in the > > memorized scripts.) > > You are inappropriately comparing the teaching to new > meditators And long-term meditators. > with my understanding of it from my perspective as a > teacher of TM and MIU grad. The statement you quoted > was accurate about Maharishi's program's goals. Not for the rank and file. *This* is a statement that is accurate for the rank and file about Maharishi's programs' goals: "The experience of enlightenment IN activity is the goal of the practice." > I was in a position to know. If you were in a position to know, why did you make misleading statements about it? You just forgot until I reminded you? > But people are welcome to > view his message differently if they choose. Well, of course. But let's tell them how *he* viewed his "message" first. People > can judge my competence to accurately reflect Maharishi's > teaching here for themselves without me giving some kind > of disclaimer. That's fine, others will do it for you (and point out that they've had to do it because you didn't). > You are over focusing on the comparison between different > levels of his teaching and drawing the whole discussion > into a very odd and uninteresting (for me) black hole. Well, of course it is "odd and uninteresting" to you. The point *you* want to make is how addictive TM is, you know, like addiction to cocaine and gambling. > This is your MO, it is what you do when I write here. > I accept that. Oh, bullshit. I wouldn't have to if you didn't write what you do. > But I think you are missing out on a much richer > intellectual discussion party by this angle. Instead > of worrying so much about what Emily understands Again: I only mentioned Emily because you were responding to a query from her; and I'm not worried about her at all because I provided the necessary clarification of what you told her that was misleading. I shouldn't have to, but if you're determined to mislead, I will clarify. > and how what I wrote is different in emphasis from what > we used to teach new meditators, And long-term meditators. So cute how you keep trying to limit it to new meditators. It's because you say stuff like this that other people have to come along and clean up after you. > throw your own experiential hat in the ring. I know better than to do that here.
