TurquoiseB wrote: > There have been a great number of statements here on FFL > about what I -- Barry Wright, TurquoiseB, Unc, whatever -- > believe about TM, Maharishi, the TMO, and TMers as a group. > There have been even more assumptions about these things, > presumed on the part of my detractors, and declared as fact > *because* they assume these things. For the record, here's > what I really believe: > > 1. TM. I believe that the basic Transcendental Meditation > technique is a simple, effective means of basic meditation > that can be life-enhancing for most of the people who learn > it. It DOESN'T MATTER to me whether it is a technique > made up by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, or whether it is, as he > claims, a rediscovery of more ancient techniques. It works, > and I wish that it were still being taught, without the > baggage that tends to accompany its teaching (see below), > and for a reasonable price. > > 2. Maharishi. Basically, I just don't know. I can see all > sides of the issue. He might be a well-meaning monk who has > the best interest of the world (as he sees it) at heart, > and who just fucks up a lot because he's human, and humans > fuck up a lot. He might be a con man, in it for personal > glory and ego-gratification and the money. He might be a > combination of the two. I will never know the truth of the > matter, and to me IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER. I always took > him at his word and never considered him enlightened, and still > do not. I have many pleasant memories of working with and > for him. I am under no illusions about his perfection, having > seen him lie through his teeth and do things that most people > on the planet would consider wrong. At the same time, I have > no reason to believe he has done any more of those wrong > things than most of the *other* people on the planet. I am > grateful for the things I learned from him that I consider > positive, and even more grateful for the things I learned > from him that I now consider negative, because that taught > me to avoid the latter in the future. > I would note that by the time I was made a teacher in 1976 he seemed bored and tired of the thing. In fact later that year he stopped making teachers in person but by tape instead.
I think it would be human nature to get tired of the process but he set that up for himself by thousands of low-level rote teachers who did not have a clue of what they were really doing instead of concentrating on a few advanced souls who *could* indeed carry on the tradition and make more teachers in the future just as gurus have done for thousands of years. Using bija mantras for meditation has certainly been done before but is usually frowned upon by gurus. In fact I recall how anxious MMY seemed to be about people getting the advanced technique which *is* a slightly modified common mantra. > 3. The TMO. A dead parrot. Deceased, nailed to its perch, and > bleedin' demised. A corpse that just hasn't gotten the email > notification of its own death yet. An irrelevancy to life on > planet Earth. A legend, but only in its own mind. Not terribly > important, and not worth saying anything more about. > IMO, killed by opportunists who thought that being very active in the TMO would be their key to power. I know a bunch that went from local bigwigs in the center to being some "national" bigwig. All of them were doing it for their own egos. > 4. TMers As A Group. Hard to say, because there is so much > confusion about what constitutes a "TMer." Is it someone who > once learned the TM technique, and may have stopped practicing > it decades ago? Is it someone who practices the TM technique > without fail, feels that they have benefitted from it, but who > never was very involved with the TMO and is not today? Is a > TMer more of a True Believer, someone whose whole life seems > to revolve around TM and Maharishi and defending them against > all critics? Or is a TMer someone who reacts to criticism of > TM and its founder by calling the critics demonic and saying > that they want to kill them? > > Regardless of what I think of the technique I do think it helped people. It doesn't if they only practiced it for 6 month or so, it changed their lives. A taste of shakti will do that to someone. But then there were a lot of teachers doing that in the 1970's. I find a lot of commonality with folks from other "movements." > Well, TMers are all of the above, and more. They're individuals. > *As* individuals, each has his own fine points and less fine > points. As a group, in my opinion FAR TOO MANY of them display > some qualities that I consider "spiritual baggage," beliefs > that they were fed by Maharishi and the TMO as an integral > part of its dogma, and that in my opinion are detrimental to > their mental and spiritual health. I wrote about them a few > days ago, coincidentally just before a number of...uh...TMers > set about DEMONSTRATING one or more of the points I wrote on > this forum, in response to one person, Paul Mason, writing a > few things of no real importance on a blog that nobody reads > anyway. I won't repost them again here, because they're already > online (FFL post #131487), but I do think that they're important > to keep in mind when *some* TMers demonstrate them in the future. > > "TMers" are a mixed bag. The best of the ones represented on > this forum personify in my opinion a strong and positive adver- > tisement for the benefits of meditation and self discovery. The > worst of them personify a strong example of cult thinking. As > with so much in life, the game is about trying to figure out > which is which. > > There you have it. Next time someone makes a declaration about > what I believe, run it past this post to see whether what they > are saying really seems to be what I believe, Ok? > > It might be an interesting exercise especially for people who have moved on to state what things they learned from MMY that they have kept. He indeed *did* repackage some very common yoga into something understandable for westerners. Dissolving samskaras became "unstressing" which is a far more accessible concept for the westerner. I liked the discussion of "cultural integrity" which is a very good concept for the times. One more obscure comment he once made was on the idea of the military, particularly the draft, where people were "conned" into dying for their freedom. What kind of freedom have you got if you have to go die for it?
