> --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I > > > > hear the term "super string" or anything of that ilk > > > > associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it > > > > can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who > > > > actually understand it and can facilitate deeper > > > > understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but > > > > for us lay folk it is mind numbing..... > > > > > > That's its true purpose. :-) > > > > the invoking the "too quick on the trigger response" part or > > the "mind numbing" part? > > The "mind numbing" part.
I was asking a bit tongue-in-check. I understood your intent. But wanted to (humorously ?) introduce another possibility -- that M. does such to invoke an irritation / vansana-driven response to it. Resolvong the vasana in those who respond. Perhaps a fringe theory, but as credible as the trance / marketing theory, IMO. N.s comment about leaving Purusha because he did not pass the test of patience, may (maybe not) be an example of this. IMO, and experience, M uses a lot of techniques to purify those around him. As did SBS, apparently -- sending M running with "secret" message to swami miles away. M to only find out it was a sort of hoax, just to put M thru some necessary loop of activity. Such tecnniques can drive many "crazy" and they leave. Others stick it out, and apparently gain some good thngs. I can't say for sure. But I know the techniques have validity from experience. > It's a sales technique > designed to make the buyer think, "Ooooo, these > people are smarter than I am. I can tell because > they use big words that I don't understand. There- > fore they know what they're talking about." I am sure there is a segment of the market that responds like that. I suggest it may be smaller than you surmise. > And > so they sign on the dotted line, or continue to > buy the inferior products of an inferior company > because they have bought into the company's use > of buzzwords. > > It's the same model used to sell hardware and > software. We in the industry call it "geekspeak." > The more incomprehensible geekspeak you throw > into the blurbs about your product, the more of > the product you are likely to sell. To fools perhaps. Most people I know respond to substance. Perhaps you hang with the wrong crowd :) > Whatever the intellectual "can I connect these > possibly unrelated dots in my mind" value that > hypothetical exercises like Hagelin's might have > for *him*, their value to the TM movement is as > geekspeak. > One of the trends that one finds in the study of > *many* spiritual traditions is that many of the > traditions that made the biggest impact on > society, and in some cases have lasted the longest > in history, were the ones that *dispensed with* > geekspeak, or presented a clear alternative to it. So the premeise is that those who communicate clearly have a larger impact than those who don't. Perhaps a revolutionary concept. > Christ taught in the common language, using anal- > ogies and metaphors that were comprehensible to > the common man. As opposed to the language and > the teachings used by the prevailing religions of > his time. He developed a following. Which prevailing religions were those and what languge and teachings do they attempt to foster on to the public? > > One of the primary reasons that the Catholic Church > exterminated the Cathars was that they *taught in > the common language*, not in Latin...and not in > geekspeak. I appreciate the Cathers directlness, but were the catholics of the time submerged in geekspeak? How so? > Buddha became popular because he rejected the high- > falootin' language and rituals of the existing > religions, and (again) taught in clear, non-geek- > speak language to the common people, about things > that they had to deal with...everyday stuff, like > suffering and how to get past it. Yet baptists and fundamentalist ministers today gather millions with far from simple language, logic and metaphors. Go figure! > > In the beginning, the TM movement taught in clear, > non-geekspeak language about the benefits of medi- > tation. More stage II. In the beginning, it was God-consciousness, divine love, angels, gods, and Charlie Lutes golden oratory of SRM. > And it developed quite a following. Over > the years it abandoned that approach and began to > rely more and more on geekspeak, which in my opinion > was more designed to pander to and hold onto the > existing followers than to attract new ones. The > result? As some have pointed out here, more existing > TMers die every year than new TMers are created. I find a lot of the newer language and cited studies more straightforward than the SIMS days. YMMV. > > I'm not convinced that geekspeak is a good thing > when it comes to spiritual teaching. Yeah, it may > appeal to the intellect, which in turn appeals to > the ego and the small self. Perhaaps. And perhaps it doesn't exist but theories about geekspeak do the same for "some people" :) > But does it really help > your life in any way to hear about superstrings and > such stuff? Yes. And black holes, and quantum mechanics, and reltivity theory. It all stretches the mind. Undgrounds one from false views of the universe. Its marvelous stuff. > Many people seem to *want* their minds > numbed by high-falootin' language and concepts > that they don't really understand. They *like* > that stuff. Speak for yourself, if your mind numbs up, fine, but don't extraploate that as a universal. I find relativity and string theory, when I am ready and open to it, is enlivening, far from numbing. > Me, I'm drawn to those teachers and > traditions that just speak clearly and without > pretension about everyday stuff and offer clear, > non-geekspeak techniques that offer more effective > ways to deal with that everyday stuff. Great. An thats the beauty of the universe. Lots of diversity and different choices for different types of people. No need to view one as superior to others.
