[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
I don't fully get what you mean by Dharma in this context... Do: Dharma is almost universally considered to be one's righteous duty, or virtuous path based on a moral code of behavior that leads to liberation... This is going to be way above the intellect of Curtis and Hugo, John. You're going way too esoteric. You really think they know anything about 'becoming' or the 'eternal return'? 'Dharma' is the Transcendental Absolute, the ultimate truth which lies totally beyond the 'wheel of becoming', beyond the physical realm of space-time. Irmeli apparently understands this, but Herr Hugo does not. According to the Hindu scriptures, those who live according to Natural Law, that is, in accordance with Dharma, simply proceed on the spiritual path more quickly and effeciently. However, following the Hindu scriptures as they pertain to class, caste, and the stages of life (varvashranadharma) are NOT an absolute requirement for liberation from the eternal round of becoming. For example, the Buddha was a warrior; the Buddha's barber was a barber; Guru Dev skipped the householder stage of life; and the Maharishi came from a family of scribes. In worldly action behave in such a way that the road to the other world is made bright, This will be when one preserves one's own dharma and shall remember Bhagavan. Thus for this reason you shall become freed from the restriction of life and death, be released from this body of excrement and urine. If not then time and time again you will return in this. [...] - Swami Brahmanand Saraswati
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
I've emphasized the interesting part in ALL CAPS below. http://integrallife.com/node/60735 Integral practitioners should not be focusing on transforming the world, but rather helping people better translate the world from wherever they might be after all, the best way to foster and support people's growth in the long run is to make them as healthy as possible in the short run. Yes this is pretty much the emphasis in Ken Wilber's integral approaches. Bringing to people new translations of their worldview at their present level of structural development that makes them thrive better where ever they are developmentally. This will make easier a healthy transformation to higher structural levels. True transfromation cannot be forced. It happens on its own, when you are ready. According to this philosophy at any level of structural development people can get access to high meditative states,and benefit from them. Structural development and learning to access to advanced states like Unity consciousness in TM are in this philosophy seen as two different phenomenon. A person can be in Unity state, and simultaneously low in his structural personal development. This is an important distinction to make. And this I think explains the many nasty things that have got revealed around gurus, who have been perceived as enlightened by many. While they can be in an Unity state, they can be morally, psychosexually etc. at a low developmental level. Another important feature of integral life practices is to learn to look at issues from as many perspectives as possible, not being stuck in just one interpretation, or one way of seeing. This in itself can be very transformative. Generally speaking the more evolved you are structurally the more perspectives you can contain and own in yourself. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli irmeli.matts...@... wrote: I've emphasized the interesting part in ALL CAPS below. http://integrallife.com/node/60735 Integral practitioners should not be focusing on transforming the world, but rather helping people better translate the world from wherever they might be after all, the best way to foster and support people's growth in the long run is to make them as healthy as possible in the short run. Yes this is pretty much the emphasis in Ken Wilber's integral approaches. Bringing to people new translations of their worldview at their present level of structural development that makes them thrive better where ever they are developmentally. This will make easier a healthy transformation to higher structural levels. True transfromation cannot be forced. It happens on its own, when you are ready. According to this philosophy at any level of structural development people can get access to high meditative states,and benefit from them. Structural development and learning to access to advanced states like Unity consciousness in TM are in this philosophy seen as two different phenomenon. A person can be in Unity state, and simultaneously low in his structural personal development. This is an important distinction to make. And this I think explains the many nasty things that have got revealed around gurus, who have been perceived as enlightened by many. While they can be in an Unity state, they can be morally, psychosexually etc. at a low developmental level. Are you asserting that -legitimate- states of higher consciousness including God Consciousness and Unity Consciousness can be obtained with total disregard for the principles of Dharma? Another important feature of integral life practices is to learn to look at issues from as many perspectives as possible, not being stuck in just one interpretation, or one way of seeing. This in itself can be very transformative. Generally speaking the more evolved you are structurally the more perspectives you can contain and own in yourself. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: Are you asserting that -legitimate- states of higher consciousness including God Consciousness and Unity Consciousness can be obtained with total disregard for the principles of Dharma? I don't fully get what you mean by Dharma in this context. Ken Willber however argues that structural development and advanced states can evolve pretty much, not fully, separately A person can be highly advanced in states, and simultaneously low in moral development, lacking in capacity to mutuality, or in capacity of taking emotionally the position of another person, not being capable of being in a true dialogue in relationships etc. Or it can be the other way around, which is more common today. A person can have obtained all these structural skills as permanent acquisitions in her makeup, but is not capable of accessing higher states. Wilber argues also that access to the advanced states can accelerate also a person's structural development, if she is not rigidly attached to distorted dogmas. My own observations pretty much resonate with what Wilber is saying. TM-movement is a good place to test these ideas. I would suggest that people who have been practicing TM-meditation without too much attachment to TM-dogma and beliefs show better development in the strcuctural side that TB's, and are doing generally better in their lives.
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli irmeli.matts...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Are you asserting that -legitimate- states of higher consciousness including God Consciousness and Unity Consciousness can be obtained with total disregard for the principles of Dharma? I don't fully get what you mean by Dharma in this context. Dharma is almost universally considered to be one's righteous duty, or virtuous path based on a moral code of behavior that leads to liberation. The Bhagavad Gita, a commonly accepted basic scripture of Hinduism for example, makes that explicitly clear. Arjuna's qualities of righteousness were requisite to his stepping into his awakening. Maharishi, as you surely know, expounded on it in his commentary. The following is from Maharishi's teacher Swami Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru Dev]: In worldly action behave in such a way that the road to the other world is made bright, This will be when one preserves one's own dharma and shall remember Bhagavan. Thus for this reason you shall become freed from the restriction of life and death, be released from this body of excrement and urine. If not then time and time again you will return in this. [...] The paramount objective of a human being's life is to gain the Anantanandamaya (limitless bliss), Sarvashaktimana (Omnipotent), gyaanswaroop (the real form of knowledge) of Paramatma (the Supreme Self). One who is constantly remembering the highest goal and who for gaining this goal has been informed of the Veda Shastra. To follow the way, that is that of the perplexity of one's own body, senses, mind, intellect etc. is kept according to the Shastra, one's own life passes favourably to dharma (duty, religion). In truth that is the quality purushartha (the object of man's existence) and he is fortunate. In this way a good man is a man whose every desire is fulfilled, he will certainly gain the goal, in this there is no uncertainty. -He makes the point and emphasizes over and over again throughout his Upadesh 108 Discourses the need for adherence to righteous behaviors found in the Shastras [scriptures] as opposed to sinful behaviors, to gain liberation: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/upadesh.htm The Buddhists include the Four Noble Truths in their definition of Dharma. The -fourth- noble truth listed here is self-explanatory: 4. The Way (Magga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering: This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.[10][11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#Pali_and_Chinese_canon_text Ken Willber however argues that structural development and advanced states can evolve pretty much, not fully, separately A person can be highly advanced in states, and simultaneously low in moral development, lacking in capacity to mutuality, or in capacity of taking emotionally the position of another person, not being capable of being in a true dialogue in relationships etc. Or it can be the other way around, which is more common today. A person can have obtained all these structural skills as permanent acquisitions in her makeup, but is not capable of accessing higher states. Wilber argues also that access to the advanced states can accelerate also a person's structural development, if she is not rigidly attached to distorted dogmas. My own observations pretty much resonate with what Wilber is saying. TM-movement is a good place to test these ideas. I would suggest that people who have been practicing TM-meditation without too much attachment to TM-dogma and beliefs show better development in the strcuctural side that TB's, and are doing generally better in their lives.
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jpgillam jpgil...@... wrote: I wrote: I'm a long way from re-certifying as a TM teacher, but I like what the organization is trying to do and look forward to its success. I'd like to see the TM organization (and all the other individuals and organizations who've taken up this work) make the world a better place by raising collective consciousness, as we say. But just tonight I ran across the following description of teachings by Ken Wilbur that say consciousness-raising is not only in vain, but ethically suspect! I've emphasized the interesting part in ALL CAPS below. http://integrallife.com/node/60735 Ken ... talks about the two different vectors of growth, which he calls transformation (the vertical ascent through different stages of consciousness) versus translation (making sense of the world from whatever stage you happen to be at, in the healthiest way possible.) This is a crucial distinction, especially for idealists who consider the goal of the Integral movement to be to raise consciousness and transform the world. BUT FORCING INDIVIDUAL OR CULTURAL TRANSFORMATION IS NOT ONLY IMPOSSIBLE, IT'S REALLY NOT VERY COMPASSIONATE, as everyone has the right to plateau at whatever stage works for them and the circumstances of their lives. Integral practitioners should not be focusing on transforming the world, but rather helping people better translate the world from wherever they might be after all, the best way to foster and support people's growth in the long run is to make them as healthy as possible in the short run. Boy, I don't get this at all. If forcing something is impossible, how can it be either compassionate or not compassionate? Maybe the writer meant to say *trying* to force transformation isn't compassionate. But even that doesn't make sense. What would an effort to force transformation even involve? Seems to me you make a means of transformation available and then try to persuade people to take advantage of it. How does that affect their right to plateau? If they're persuaded, doesn't that mean they think where they are currently isn't working as well for them as they'd like? And isn't the message of transformation that raising consciousness helps people better translate the world? Wouldn't *withholding the means of transformation amount to forcing people to stay where they are? At the link, on a different page, I found this, referring to the same talk by Wilber, which makes more sense to me: Finally, Ken talks about the three different definitions of 'self' that have caused so much confusion while trying to integrate Western philosophy with Eastern philosophy. He identifies these 'selves' as the False Self (the broken or illusory self), the Actual Self (the 'authentic' or healthily-integrated self at any particular stage of development), and the Real Self (the timeless Self behind and beyond all manifestation). To summarize, there have been many failed attempts to remedy the finite False Self by trying to plug it directly into the infinite Real Self, completely bypassing the need to cultivate a healthy and fully- functional Actual Self as the arbiter of our illuminationresulting at best as [sic] an effete and cantankerous enlightenment, at worst as the unfulfilling desperation of spiritual bypassing. http://integrallife.com/node/54959 With regard to TM, the idea has always been, in my understanding, that countless ways to cultivate the Actual Self are available, but that they are greatly facilitated by regular plugging in to the Real Self. The potential success of cultivation of the Actual Self is limited without that plugging in. Moreover, plugging in is said to inspire the desire to cultivate. Since we already have the means to cultivate, all that needs to be added is the means to plug in; that's what TM presumably provides. Maybe TM should put more emphasis on cultivation, but it shouldn't have to provide the means to do so as well. It should focus primarily on the plugging-in part and point out that while one must not neglect the cultivation part, it's easily available elsewhere in a wide variety of contexts, and one should pick an approach that works for them and the circumstances of their lives at the current stage of their development (which means the means of cultivation may change as consciousness develops). This seems to be essentially the same issue as that of whether Patanjali's steps have inadvertently become reversed, one of MMY's most revolutionary ideas. It's an idea that I instantly resonated with when I first encountered MMY's teaching. And before anyone claims I've just unquestioningly swallowed the dogma, it was an idea that I'd been entertaining in my own way well before I'd ever even heard of TM, and not in the context of Patanjali or even of enlightenment per se. (It was inspired, in
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip Concentration, to them, is almost by definition BAD, or contrary to the natural tendency of the mind, or lesser than effortlessness. It can take such a person a decade or more before they are willing to even *try* a form of meditation that was demonized by their TM teachers. And when they do, often they find that what had been described to them by their TM teachers was FALSE, and that they have much deeper and more profound experiences as a result of practicing the thing they had been taught was BAD. Another TM assumption (not limited to TM) is that it isn't necessarily a great idea to judge a meditation technique's effectiveness by what one experiences during meditation. snip What I'm suggesting is that disengaging from the org- anization is not the same thing as disengaging from its dogma. Many do the former but never the latter. How many former TMers do you know who, if asked whether meditation must be performed sitting with eyes closed, would unhesitatingly answer, Of course! Right, if they understood the question to be whether *TM* must be practiced sitting with eyes closed. Thing is...that's not true. Many forms of meditation are performed with eyes open. Many do not require you to sit or remain inactive while practicing them. Note the bait-and-switch here, a clever setup designed to lead to a false conclusion. If the TMers understood the question to be asking whether *all* forms of meditation must be practiced sitting with eyes closed, very few TMers would answer in the affirmative. Those who did would simply be ignorant; it wouldn't have anything to do with adherence to dogma. snip To be free of everyday interaction with a spiritual organization is one form of disengaging. But have you really disengaged if you've never challenged the basic, core assumptions it taught you to see if you still consider them to be true? Unspoken (and entirely false) assumption, one we've seen many times from Barry: If you still consider the core TM assumptions to be true, you can't ever have challenged them.
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: I started meditating in April of 1973. My disengagement happened by January 1974. Yet I still went to TTC, MIU, and 6-month course and got what I could out of those experiences (a lot of great things) and rejected the bad stuff. And I still do TM and feel pretty much as you do as you describe above. I am always perplexed, however, by the personal histories of some ex TMers, like Rick Archer who end up having some sort of revelation or information that makes them rethink their relationship with the Movement. I mean, aside from the technique and the instructions to use it, it was pretty obvious to me from the get-go that the people who ran the TMO were full of shit and the propaganda factor was significant. How could anyone miss it? I think it's a case of people not having a set world-view or framework to measure things when they first join in and then thinking that it might be true and going along with it because everybody else does. If you're the questioning type it won't be long before you realise that it doesn't fit together so well. Why Bevan and Hagelin feel they need to persist in it now MMY is gone I don't know, too brainwashed for their own good perhaps? Too much adjustment required to fit back into the real world? Probably both reasons and many more. How can you justify all that NLP stuff and talk of the CIA and flying and all that when it isn't supposed to be a religion or a philosophy or a change in lifestyle?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Hugo richardhughes...@hotmail.com wrote: Why Bevan and Hagelin feel they need to persist in it now MMY is gone I don't know, too brainwashed for their own good perhaps? Too much adjustment required to fit back into the real world? Probably both reasons and many more. It makes perfect sense to me why Bevin and Hegelin persist in the TMO and shovel out the bullshit. They are in their way the top of the heap. So many TBs in the TMO bow down to Dr. BM and Dr. John. If you don't agree with them, you are banished. You have a machine constantly putting out cease and desist orders, filing lawsuits, praising Dr. BM and Dr. John. It is a blessed life, as lives go, to be Dr. BM or Dr. John. What's the difference between these two guys and Rama or other pretenders? Remember, there are wrongful death charges being filed by the ?State of Aridzona? against a new age evangelist and teacher of The Secret for the sweat lodge deaths. Now there's a dude raking in the $millions. And there are a million millionaires willing to back him up. I /wish/ I were in the position of Dr. John or Dr. BM to have so many people bow down at my feet, drone on about how wonderful I am, travel (I doubt steerage class) wherever they want, have so many interesting places like Six Flags Over Vlodrup to visit or Six Flags Over Wall Street to use as one's base. Jim and Tammy Baker also lived a blessed life. They were surrounded by sycophants, had a life of luxury. They believed they were doing God's work. And the gold water faucets in their homes, the luxury corporate jets, the adoring crowds, the sycophants, amplified that feeling. I don't see much of a difference between Dr. BM and Dr. John and the Wall Street/banker execs who brought down the world economy and are now upset that we're objecting to their multi-million dollar bonuses. In fact, I don't see the difference between Dr. John and Dr. BM and the average big company CEO. No matter how badly you fuck up, you can still vote yourself bonuses, private jets and buy expensive art on the company's tab. You get to a place in life where you can hire a cardiologist at $50,000 to give you an IV drip of an anesthetic to give you a good night's sleep. And there's nothing wrong with it. That's where Dr. John and Dr. BM are at.
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
I am not so much replying to any of the thoughtful comments in this thread as I am reusing the Subject line because I like the word disengaging. It's a long and fascinating process, and one of the most challenging aspects of it is disengaging not just from contact with the organization you no longer feel an affinity with, but disengaging from *assumptions* that organization taught you that still color your thinking. For example, I've known former TMers who left the fold physically but who have never left the mindset. Their *reason* for leaving TM was in some cases a lack of profound experiences in meditation. But when I suggest to them that they try another form of meditation and describe it to them, they say, Oh no, I could never do that. That's *concentration*. See what I'm getting at? While they have walked away from the practice of TM, they have never examined or walked away from the basic assumptions about meditation it taught them. Concentration, to them, is almost by definition BAD, or contrary to the natural tendency of the mind, or lesser than effortlessness. It can take such a person a decade or more before they are willing to even *try* a form of meditation that was demonized by their TM teachers. And when they do, often they find that what had been described to them by their TM teachers was FALSE, and that they have much deeper and more profound experiences as a result of practicing the thing they had been taught was BAD. As another example, I know people who walked away from the Rama trip, and no longer consider him enlightened. They're off searching madly for a real enlightened teacher. So I ask them, What are your *criteria* for an enlightened teacher? How will you recognize one when you meet him or her? And they look at me with a straight face and give me the definition of enlightenment that was taught to them by Rama. They left *him* behind, but they never once challenged the dogma he taught them. I hope Curtis chimes in on this thread more. He has done a lot of conscious work on figuring out what the dogma or epistemology he had been taught along the way *is*, and examining how much of it is actually true. What I'm suggesting is that disengaging from the org- anization is not the same thing as disengaging from its dogma. Many do the former but never the latter. How many former TMers do you know who, if asked whether meditation must be performed sitting with eyes closed, would unhesitatingly answer, Of course! Thing is...that's not true. Many forms of meditation are performed with eyes open. Many do not require you to sit or remain inactive while practicing them. To be free of everyday interaction with a spiritual organization is one form of disengaging. But have you really disengaged if you've never challenged the basic, core assumptions it taught you to see if you still consider them to be true?
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip Thing is...that's not true. Many forms of meditation are performed with eyes open. Many do not require you to sit or remain inactive while practicing them. That's the mantra of the Turq; please stop TM and do something that doesn't work as well, preferrably some Buddhist mumbo-jumbo. He is struggelig to explain just why they should do that when scientific research suggest that for example meditating with your eyes open is less effective. But that's his vocation I suppose.
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@... wrote: I /wish/ I were in the position of Dr. John or Dr. BM to have so many people bow down at my feet, drone on about how wonderful I am, travel (I doubt steerage class) wherever they want, have so many interesting places like Six Flags Over Vlodrup to visit or Six Flags Over Wall Street to use as one's base. Do you really? Sounds a bit hollow to me, especially if I'd have to compromise what I think about anything. Which is where I suspect Hagelin really is at. He can't really believe all the stuff he claims about jyotish and quantum physics for instance, it's all for the crowd, he'd get no respect from working physicists and he has to know it. I've met top movement physicists and asked them how they square stuff like jyotish with their scientific training and the straight answer is that they don't. Not scientifically anyway, but when you've chosen to follow a guru who claims to be bringing science into the realm of the spirit and he suddenly hits you with stuff like yagyas etc. what can you do but compromise to stay in his good books? I remember being told to stay indoors during an eclipse because it's bad karma to see the sun hidden by the moon apparently. I gave a good argument that it's no different from standing in the shade of a building just a bit spookier, it was sad that hardly anyone else, physicists included, would venture outside.
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I am not so much replying to any of the thoughtful comments in this thread as I am reusing the Subject line because I like the word disengaging. It's a long and fascinating process, and one of the most challenging aspects of it is disengaging not just from contact with the organization you no longer feel an affinity with, but disengaging from *assumptions* that organization taught you that still color your thinking. For example, I've known former TMers who left the fold physically but who have never left the mindset. Their *reason* for leaving TM was in some cases a lack of profound experiences in meditation. But when I suggest to them that they try another form of meditation and describe it to them, they say, Oh no, I could never do that. That's *concentration*. Funny thing is I disengaged from the dogma long before I left the building. They always said you don't have to change your beliefs on anything so I didn't, it was quite a laugh when I said I didn't believe a word of it. But we got along well so I stayed around and I'd never try and put anyone else off what they were into so it was cool. But the scorpionland debacle followed by the raja embarassment was too much. I couldn't stay in case people thought I approved! I guess everyone has a limit on what they would put up with. Fun while it lasted...
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
TurquoiseB: To be free of everyday interaction with a spiritual organization is one form of disengaging. But have you really disengaged if you've never challenged the basic, core assumptions it taught you to see if you still consider them to be true? So, what have you done to disengage from your dogmatic, basic, core assumption and belief in the individual soul-monad? Can you cite a single common sense reason why anyone would believe that they possess an individual soul or inner controller that reincarnates again and again?
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
I wrote: I'm a long way from re-certifying as a TM teacher, but I like what the organization is trying to do and look forward to its success. I'd like to see the TM organization (and all the other individuals and organizations who've taken up this work) make the world a better place by raising collective consciousness, as we say. But just tonight I ran across the following description of teachings by Ken Wilbur that say consciousness-raising is not only in vain, but ethically suspect! I've emphasized the interesting part in ALL CAPS below. http://integrallife.com/node/60735 Ken ... talks about the two different vectors of growth, which he calls transformation (the vertical ascent through different stages of consciousness) versus translation (making sense of the world from whatever stage you happen to be at, in the healthiest way possible.) This is a crucial distinction, especially for idealists who consider the goal of the Integral movement to be to raise consciousness and transform the world. BUT FORCING INDIVIDUAL OR CULTURAL TRANSFORMATION IS NOT ONLY IMPOSSIBLE, IT'S REALLY NOT VERY COMPASSIONATE, as everyone has the right to plateau at whatever stage works for them and the circumstances of their lives. Integral practitioners should not be focusing on transforming the world, but rather helping people better translate the world from wherever they might be after all, the best way to foster and support people's growth in the long run is to make them as healthy as possible in the short run. http://integrallife.com/node/60735
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote: May I ask, how did you happen to disengage? I sometimes wonder how likely it is for a long term true believer to give it up and lose faith. And whether it simply is a drifting away or a more sudden aha moment. In 2001 I lost my attachment to the TM organization without dropping my beliefs in the TM worldview. To me, identification with the True Self - pure consciousness - is vitally important to individual and collective health. I still believe that collective consciousness influences individual thoughts and actions. I believe the world is going through a phase transition in the Domash-Hagelin sense of that term. To me, the Science of Creative Intelligence is a great explanation of how creation works. I still consider TM to be a super-nifty way to transcend, although I no longer consider it to be the only practical way. I realized I no longer felt a deep attachment to the TM organization in January of 2001. I realized it had been about a month since I had yearned to return to the TM womb - a yearning that had been fairly constant for me up until that time. The switch just happened. An ooga-booga consultant offered an explanation for the change in attitude, but it's too woo-woo to repeat. The shift in attitude was automatic and easy, but it took a while to integrate it, as the saying goes. Discussions on Fairfield Life played an integral role in helping my intellect catch up with my heart during much of 2002 and 2003. Lots of postings of that era dealt with helping people question teachings and find answers to dissonances. I'm a long way from re-certifying as a TM teacher, but I like what the organization is trying to do and look forward to its success.
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jpgillam jpgil...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote: May I ask, how did you happen to disengage? I sometimes wonder how likely it is for a long term true believer to give it up and lose faith. And whether it simply is a drifting away or a more sudden aha moment. In 2001 I lost my attachment to the TM organization without dropping my beliefs in the TM worldview. To me, identification with the True Self - pure consciousness - is vitally important to individual and collective health. I still believe that collective consciousness influences individual thoughts and actions. I believe the world is going through a phase transition in the Domash-Hagelin sense of that term. To me, the Science of Creative Intelligence is a great explanation of how creation works. I still consider TM to be a super-nifty way to transcend, although I no longer consider it to be the only practical way. I realized I no longer felt a deep attachment to the TM organization in January of 2001. I realized it had been about a month since I had yearned to return to the TM womb - a yearning that had been fairly constant for me up until that time. The switch just happened. An ooga-booga consultant offered an explanation for the change in attitude, but it's too woo-woo to repeat. The shift in attitude was automatic and easy, but it took a while to integrate it, as the saying goes. Discussions on Fairfield Life played an integral role in helping my intellect catch up with my heart during much of 2002 and 2003. Lots of postings of that era dealt with helping people question teachings and find answers to dissonances. I'm a long way from re-certifying as a TM teacher, but I like what the organization is trying to do and look forward to its success. I started meditating in April of 1973. My disengagement happened by January 1974. Yet I still went to TTC, MIU, and 6-month course and got what I could out of those experiences (a lot of great things) and rejected the bad stuff. And I still do TM and feel pretty much as you do as you describe above. I am always perplexed, however, by the personal histories of some ex TMers, like Rick Archer who end up having some sort of revelation or information that makes them rethink their relationship with the Movement. I mean, aside from the technique and the instructions to use it, it was pretty obvious to me from the get-go that the people who ran the TMO were full of shit and the propaganda factor was significant. How could anyone miss it? How can you justify all that NLP stuff and talk of the CIA and flying and all that when it isn't supposed to be a religion or a philosophy or a change in lifestyle?
[FairfieldLife] Disengaging (was Re: Fwd: Vote for Consciousness-Based Education at Change.org)
This is one of those more cogent posts about the TMorg that can show up on FFL. Archetypal. There are many hundreds of meditators like this around Fairfield and lots of others around the country also just like this. What was a whole movement. Practically, if Hagelin, Tony and Bevan et. al. can't empathize with this and come to some kind of terms other than their own, then they ain't going to go nowhere with the knowledge they got now. Like this post below, they got a large problem in the dis-engaged, dispossessed, and those dis-enfranchised of a Transcendental Meditation movement. The challenge is that these folks are out there in the marketplace talking to others about their state. Is not a good recommendation. God Help them, -D in FF May I ask, how did you happen to disengage? I sometimes wonder how likely it is for a long term true believer to give it up and lose faith. And whether it simply is a drifting away or a more sudden aha moment. In 2001 I lost my attachment to the TM organization without dropping my beliefs in the TM worldview. To me, identification with the True Self - pure consciousness - is vitally important to individual and collective health. I still believe that collective consciousness influences individual thoughts and actions. I believe the world is going through a phase transition in the Domash-Hagelin sense of that term. To me, the Science of Creative Intelligence is a great explanation of how creation works. I still consider TM to be a super-nifty way to transcend, although I no longer consider it to be the only practical way. I realized I no longer felt a deep attachment to the TM organization in January of 2001. I realized it had been about a month since I had yearned to return to the TM womb - a yearning that had been fairly constant for me up until that time. The switch just happened. An ooga-booga consultant offered an explanation for the change in attitude, but it's too woo-woo to repeat. The shift in attitude was automatic and easy, but it took a while to integrate it, as the saying goes. Discussions on Fairfield Life played an integral role in helping my intellect catch up with my heart during much of 2002 and 2003. Lots of postings of that era dealt with helping people question teachings and find answers to dissonances. I'm a long way from re-certifying as a TM teacher, but I like what the organization is trying to do and look forward to its success.
