You are right about the effect of this ‘monitoring’ on people while they are
meditating. The extent of that administrative monitoring was stopped last
summer as being antithetical to effortless meditation but not before that
monitoring’s damage was done to participation in the Domes and a cohesion of
the community around super radiance and the Dome meditation. . There is ongoing
consideration now as to how to have people back in the Domes meditating. See
notes to the December community meeting held in Fairfield on Super Radiance and
the Dome group meditation numbers. Minutes within this post link, open & scroll
down to them..
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/436875
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/436875
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
A few comments and questions from someone who has not done the IA course (but
was in the dome for many years beforehand):
“..Increasingly throughout his life, Maharishi became more and more interested
in yogic flying compared to meditation.
And by yogic flying, Maharishi was repeatedly emphatic. It was about lifting
off, not just sitting.
Source?
At least three times during the IAA period, it came to Maharishi's attention
that someone was not lifting off.
Seriously? At least three times? From what people tell me, most men do not
lift off most of the time. He did not know this?
He made it completely clear that this is not acceptable, should not be
considered acceptable or successful practice.
On the other hand, on my flying block, it was made clear that the goal of the
practice IS the transcendence. Innocence in practice is paramount. Not minding
the outcome.
Source of his “not considered acceptable?” Did MMY say that directly to course
participants?
He wanted to see observable lift off. He said that is what creates the benefit
for the individual, and that is what creates benefit for society. Whenever it
came to his attention that someone was not lifting off, he would immediately
tell them, no, no, you should see the Checker / Master Checker.
“Someone was not lifting off”: as in, most people most of the time?
How available are Checkers/Master Checkers?
Who else is in this category? Who else is not lifting off? Raise the hands?
What is the count? Get together and see the Master Checker, let me know, make
sure and do this," etc. That is always how he was about it. He wanted success.
Is this the origin of the so-called program monitors? Nothing like someone
hovering over you (pun intended) to make you practice more effortlessly and
innocently.
The analogy I use for myself is that 'practicing' Yogic Flying without lifting
off is like sitting at the piano without touching the keys and saying (and
thinking), "I'm practicing playing the piano."
Or, you sit at the piano playing your piece, but it hasn’t reached a level of
performance-ready.
If you do the practice as instructed, isn’t that all that matters? Regardless
of outcome?
The evolutionary difference between lifting off and not lifting off is immense.
Evidence?
It might be said (or might not) that if one is not lifting off, that one is
not being successful in the practice.
From my instructions, “might not” is more apt.
This is why Howard Settle made a very crystal clear requirement, and
established this, that people must be lifting off to be paid on the grant.
Although he did not say how that would or should be accomplished, he was firm
about this, and this was in line with Maharishi's thinking and actions.
Which only encouraged people faking it (and people did). This creates an
unnatural situation.
My wife tells me there is not one woman in the Womens' Dome not lifting off,
at least who are rounding on the IAAssembly. And my impression is that most
women lift off a lot. The men are so different - very little lifting off. Just
look around during flying.
Not one? Really? My lady friends tell me differently.
Maharishi Foundation has developed a thinking to not use the term 'flying'
because we are not flying through the air.
Very wise. I have never liked the term because people have never “flown.”
They are doing this partly or mainly bec to avoid public criticism. But they
are taking it so far as to come across to me as wanting to abandon the term
'flying' inside the Movement.
Probably a good idea. Call it “hopping” or “spontaneous hopping” or something
that more accurately reflects what an outside observer would see.
This is not evolutionary, and it is also due to the need for more experience.
Why? What do you mean?
Anyone with more experience (from lifting off, and from longer program) that
there is a continuum of experience between hopping and flying, it is not a
black and white difference. There is an energy that can come and lift one up
that is entirely non-muscular. To the extent this happens, it is actually
flying, not just 'hopping.'
Maybe spontaneous hopping or spontaneous body movement, but not flying.
It is the experience and inner experience of flying. Promoting to say it is
not flying is spiritually dull, and also dulling to the experience and progress.
It is not spiritually dull, but spiritually honest.
How is this dulling to the experience and progress? A label of something does
not matter to the experience.
Saying to not use the word 'flying' inside the Movement is to reduce the power
and evolutionary effect of yogic flying, to dampen the program, to reduce the
purity and power of the practice.
Really? How? Is the program that fragile?
Not to use the word 'flying' in public is one thing, and I can see the
practicality of that. But to say not to use it inside the Movement, especially
among Sidhas, is spiritually dulling, and reflects the need to do more hopping,
and longer flying time. Thanks for listening,”
How is this spiritually dulling?
