Again, just as a followup, it seems to me that one of the stated *purposes* of this group (to discuss *many* different spiritual paths, not just TM) is perceived as being at "cross purposes" to how they perceive the group by some people here.
One of the reasons I miss Vaj is that he could talk from experience about several different spiritual paths, and discuss the differences between them. So can others here, who have "branched out" from On The Program TM and have dabbled in other paths. It seems to me that one of the most interesting aspects of spiritual practice is how those practices *differ*, so every so often I'll throw something out to point out *how* different my time spent with Rama or later with Tibetan groups was from the time in TM. One would think that TMers could discuss such things without getting uptight, but that has sometimes not been the case here. When someone presents a different way of "walking the spiritual walk," some seem to feel the need to fall back on the "Yeah, but TM is better" response, and find a way to put the other practice or emphasis down. For example, that has happened when people bring up mindfulness practice (which is *very* different from anything taught by the TMO) or views on celibacy/sexuality, the 'tude one should have towards a teacher, etc. What ever happened to curiosity about the larger world of spiritual practice? Was that declared Off The Program by the TMO at some point? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Since some seemed to...uh...bristle at me just telling > it like it was about the time I spent with Rama, I guess > I should continue, explaining why I posted it. First, I > did it because Share asked, and in a way that seemed to > contain no malice, only curiosity. Second, I wanted to > make the case that *all spiritual paths are not the same*. > > Over the years I've gotten used to long-term TMers just > assuming that everyone else's spiritual paths -- the > day in, day out of it all -- was similar to theirs. Au > contraire, Pierre. Maharishi emphasized certain things, > and considered them valuable, and other teachers do the > same, but with completely different things. > > In this particular example, what I was on about was the > importance of career, and the place it holds in one's > spiritual progress. I've found over the years that many, > especially those from New Age or Hindu-based traditions, > seem to "divide" their lives into separate compartments. > There's their "spiritual life" -- the meditating, "going > on courses," bouncing in the dome, and stuff like that, > which they seem to consider their spiritual life, and > then there is *everything else*, which many seem to think > is almost antithetical to the "spiritual life," in that > it keeps them from doing the things that'll get them > enlightened (or whatever they hope it'll get them). > > Suffice it to say that this is *not* a universal approach. > In many Buddhist traditions, for example, one's "Day Job," > meaning career and the 22-23 hours per day they spend > *not* meditating is seen as just as important as medi- > tating, and just as much an opportunity for spiritual > growth. Rama was of that ilk. He taught that one's career > presented a marvelous opportunity to practice "being > spiritual in the world," meaning to 1) do a good job at > it (because doing a good job is better for you than doing > a shitty job), and 2) to practice *succeeding*, and thus > accomplishing measurable things in the material world. > > As a result, whatever *else* may be legitimately said about > him and his teachings and the impact that they had on his > students, most of them followed his advice and put a lot > of energy into developing their careers. And it paid off. > They made *shitloads* of money, and excelled in their > chosen professions, often rising to the tops of companies > or starting their own. At least a dozen students I know > formed their own companies and became millionaires; most > of the rest still earn enough to put them in the sometimes > hated 1%, even in this economy. > > NOT that this in itself is an overly laudable goal. What > money does for one is give you FREEDOM. Freedom to travel, > to take time off whenever you want to go to Bhutan or go > diving in Bali, and money to spend on teaching meditation > for free or whatever gets you off. As ambivalent as I may > be about the Rama guy, I still think that this was all good > advice, and it paid off for those who followed it. Once he > was gone, they still had their careers, and they still had > the freedom it brought them. > > I was never in the "gotta make millions" camp, that just > not being one of my priorities in life. But, largely as a > result of his prodding, I built up my skill set and my rep > such that even today, at my age, I can pull in the big bucks > if I choose to work in my chosen field. I thoroughly enjoyed > taking some time off and doing part-time writing in other > fields these last few months, but to be honest I'm enjoying > digging into some serious, hang-ten high tech again more. > It gives me an opportunity to excel, and *that* gives me > an opportunity to progress in my spiritual path. > > For me, and for many who feel similarly, there is no > difference between our Day Jobs and the rest of our lives, > or our spiritual lives. It's all a continuum, 24/7, every > moment of which gives us the opportunity to progress. Call > me crazy, but I think that's a more sensible approach than > that followed by people who believe they're only progressing > towards their spiritual goals when they're meditating or > "on courses." > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > turq on Lenz: When we went on "courses" we stayed in five-star > > > hotels and dined at five-star restaurants. > > > me to turq: what is significance of 5 star establishments in > > > this context? Why put word courses in quotes? > > > > 1. We never *had* "courses" in the sense in which you > > think of them from TM and the TMO. We never went to > > some location to learn some specific teaching, avail- > > able only there. When we went "on the road," it was > > always a combination of fun, teaching, and journeying > > to places of power. And fun very much *was* a part of > > every such journey, and viewed as just as important > > as any teachings. For example, we used to travel to > > power places in the Southwest (Grand Canyon, Monument > > Valley, Canyon de Chelly, etc.), to Paris, Amsterdam, > > and London (for teaching and fun), and to other places > > like Hawaii or Bali. > > > > 2. There are rankings of both hotels and restaurants > > in the world, based on their quality. For example, > > there are about 10 five-star restaurants in Paris, > > but there are only 16 five-star restaurants in the > > entire United States, as rated by the same Michelin > > Guide. Rama felt very strongly that to be successful > > in one's profession (something he valued and taught), > > one had to become comfortable in such environments, > > so we tended to have special events in such places. > > There are similar ratings for hotels; when we went > > to both Paris and Hawaii, we stayed in five-star > > hotels there. > > > > In other words, do not make the mistake of thinking > > that spiritual paths were as spartan as they were > > in the TMO. And in answer to your unasked but likely > > question, no, not every student could afford these > > outings, but I could. My salary level quadrupled > > within a few years of beginning to study with the > > guy (largely due to his influence, prodding, and > > training he provided), and stayed high all the way > > through. Richard will probably chime in with horse- > > shit he's read on websites about students being > > dirt poor and giving all their money to the guy, > > but much of that is simply not true. When you're > > making over $1000 a day as a consultant on Wall > > Street, as I was towards the end of my time with > > the Rama guy, you can afford to eat or stay at > > five-star joints. > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:25 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Majorca Spain to turq and Ann > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > turq, is this the REAL truth about your attitude towards > > > > TMO?ÃÂ That they employ bad cooks and don't offer the > > > > local food?ÃÂ > > > > > > I was speaking about one course in particular, on > > > which the cooks could have spoiled the best food > > > in the environment. On other courses they mainly > > > rendered in bland and tasteless. Things may have > > > gotten better over the years, but if not you may > > > just not have a very developed palate. > > > > > > > Are you really just a foodie after all?ÃÂ I'm beginning > > > > to suspect that this is this case, having heard you > > > > wax fondly about French meals, etc.ÃÂ And now this > > > > about the food on your TTC.ÃÂ Anyway, I hear you > > > > and understand.ÃÂ And admit that now I'm curious > > > > about the food associated with Mr. Lenz and his > > > > courses. > > > > > > When we went on "courses" we stayed in five-star > > > hotels and dined at five-star restaurants. No > > > "movement" cooks whatsoever. Also, most of us > > > were omnivores, so accommodations were made for > > > the real vegetarians, but few of them had to > > > be made. > > > > > >
