[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
Om, word on the street is that SCI is being dropped as a course because is so unpopular with the students. So, the Rajas have concluded. Would that also be related to working TM's positioning on the religion issue. The man is dead not even a year, and they chuck his Science of Creative Intelligence? what are they doing with all his money? 1971, Maharishi's Year of Science of Creative Intelligence. Maharishi formulated the Science of Creative Intelligence as the scientific theory for the development of higher states of sconsciousness, which naturally develop through the practice of Transcendental Meditations. Maharishi establishes Maharishi International University in the USA, to serve as a model of ideal education in the world. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: -Original Message- From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion Dear Colleagues, I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
Oh okay, then its a cultic religion by definition test. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: -Original Message- From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion Dear Colleagues, I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of religion, and concludes that Page 3 It has been asserted that the TM program was previously declared a religious practice in federal court. This, however, is demonstrably not so. In a Third Circuit case from 1979, the Court found that an elective course on the Science of Creative Intelligence was a religious activity. Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1979). To be sure, the elective course included the use of the TM technique, but the Court's focus was on the Science of Creative Intelligence. Judge Adams explained, in his separate opinion, that the belief in Creative Intelligence was a comprehensive system for looking at issues of ultimate concern- answering affirmatively the first two questions later delineated in Africa. Malnak, 592 F.2d at 213 (Adams, J. concurring). The Court certainly did not decide whether TM by itself was a religious activity. Id. ([TM] by itself might be defended ... as primarily a relaxation or concentration technique with no 'ultimate' significance). Some have suggested that the religious nature of the TM program is revealed in the single ceremony called the Puja. Prior to a practitioner engaging in the TM technique for the first time, the practitioner witnesses the Puja. After the ceremony each individual being instructed is given a mantra to use-a word, to which no meaning is ascribed, to silently repeat during the TM technique. The Puja is not a religious activity, though it may have the look of a religious ceremony. Because it is performed entirely in Sanskrit, no student and maybe not even the teacher who leads the Puja, know what the foreign words mean in English. See id. at 203. Simply put, the Puja does not have religious significance (it does not address ultimate questions) and is merely a ceremonial method by which mantras are assigned. In addition, it is practiced only once for each student. TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION AS PART OF A QUIET TIME PROGRAM IS CONSTITUTIONAL Even if it were to be assumed that the TM program is a religious practice, its use in the context of a Quiet Time program is constitutional. No Court has ever ruled that a school policy, which provides for a period of quiet for its students to do what they deem fit, is unlawful or --- April 9, 2007 Page 4 unconstitutional. Indeed, it is quite clear that students could engage in religious or non-religious activities during a neutrally implemented period of voluntary quiet, without raising an issue under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Wallace v. Jaffree, confirmed the constitutional right to a voluntary period of meditation in the classroom with a clearly secular purpose in the pre-existing State legislation when it struck down the proposed new legislation, which impermissibly sought to promote religious prayer: The legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of course, quite different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the school day. The [pre-existing] statute already protected that right, containing nothing that prevented any student from engaging in voluntary prayer during a silent minute of meditation. 472 U.S. at 58. Moment of silence or quiet time laws or policies are constitutional when they demonstrate neutrality to religion, have a clearly secular purpose, and do not entangle schools in religious issues. Id. at 56; see Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 996 (2001) (upholding neutral quiet time law with clearly secular purpose against Establishment Clause challenge); Brown v. Gwinnett County Sch. Dist., 112 F.3d 1464 (11th Cir. 1997) (same). The Quiet Time program, as it is currently instituted in public schools, does not raise an issue under the Establishment Clause. First, it maintains the school's complete neutrality to religion. The Quiet Time program allows students to engage in any quiet activity that they choose. The school does not favor one practice over another. Second, even if the TM technique were a religious activity, the Quiet Time program has a clearly secular purpose: it allows students a quiet period during which
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
It is not 6 or 8 means but, significantly, limbs of yoga. When you pull one leg of a chair the whole chair follows. So even if you disregard the 10 or so sutras concerning Ishwara out of the 195 Sutras of Yoga Sutra, you can practice easily Yoga or Meditation without being concerned with a religion. And derive great benefits of TM. And when it is assumed, I know it is a far fetched assumption, that what the churches teach is a religion then by all counts TM is NOT a religion. So let the churches out of schools: An organisation with such a mafia history and ingnorant present (e.g. the world is 6000 yrs old), should not be allowed to bend the minds of our children. But if we want to improve minds and health in an easy and graceful manner - make sure to do 20 min. twice a day in every schools and everywhere else, too. With best wishes Shaas --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Although the meditation itself is not (or at least doesn't *have* to be done as) a religious practice, the puja certainly is and every initiator is schooled and tested on exactly what the Sanskrit words mean and what internal feelings those words are supposed to evoke in the initiator. To say that the teacher may not know what they mean is not just disingenuous, it's a lie. And the puja unquestionably deals with and articulates a point of view regarding the ultimate truth. The initiator may not ultimately subscribe to the teachings contained in the puja, but we were all mightily encouraged to adopt and conform to those teachings and most, if not all my initiator colleagues did, and without question. If anything, we were eager to be taught what it really meant and what was the real truth behind what it was we were initiating people into. It seems absurd to me that movement apologists continue dancing around the issue. Who cares? For myself, I'm happy to have been a devoted member of a hindu cult; I'm happy to continue to subscribe to some of the tenets, though not as fervently or dogmatically as in the past; but pujas and yagyas and all day meditation programs at one end of the spectrum are certainly religious, even if twice daily meditation at the other end of the spectrum may not be. I agree with you. IMO TM is a science of Religion, or a Religious Science. The reason Religion is such a big 'bug a boo' to the TMorg and MMY is the deplorable state Religion is in todaywho wants that! Ha! Also MMY determined he could have a broader appeal if he eliminated any Religious connotations, (like Patanjali's first two limbs, Yama and Niyama) and he was right, unfortunately that leaves you with a half a loaf and reduces the effectiveness of TM by ignoring the recommendations Patanjali had. With MMY there are only 6 *means* to Yoga and not 8 like Patanjali had recommeded. When or if he was ever going to reinstate the full 8 limbs or means to Yoga is anybody's guessI guess it's too late for that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amritasyaputra amritasyapu...@... wrote: It is not 6 or 8 means but, significantly, limbs of yoga. When you pull one leg of a chair the whole chair follows. So even if you disregard the 10 or so sutras concerning Ishwara out of the 195 Sutras of Yoga Sutra, you can practice easily Yoga or Meditation without being concerned with a religion. And derive great benefits of TM. And when it is assumed, I know it is a far fetched assumption, that what the churches teach is a religion then by all counts TM is NOT a religion. So let the churches out of schools: An organisation with such a mafia history and ingnorant present (e.g. the world is 6000 yrs old), should not be allowed to bend the minds of our children. But if we want to improve minds and health in an easy and graceful manner - make sure to do 20 min. twice a day in every schools and everywhere else, too. With best wishes Shaas Just as a question, Shaas, because you haven't posted here very much, since improving the minds of our children in an easy and graceful manner is so important, would you say that it should be made *mandatory* in schools and everywhere else? That is, if a law could be written or policy enacted that made it the rule of law that every person practice TM 20 minutes twice a day, would you accept such a law and think that it was a good idea? If it were a law, and someone violated it by refusing to meditate 20 minutes twice a day, or by practicing some other form of prayer, meditation, or spiritual sadhana, what do you think would be a suitable punishment or fine?
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Just as a question, Shaas, because you haven't posted here very much, since improving the minds of our children in an easy and graceful manner is so important, would you say that it should be made *mandatory* in schools and everywhere else? That is, if a law could be written or policy enacted that made it the rule of law that every person practice TM 20 minutes twice a day, would you accept such a law and think that it was a good idea? If it were a law, and someone violated it by refusing to meditate 20 minutes twice a day, or by practicing some other form of prayer, meditation, or spiritual sadhana, what do you think would be a suitable punishment or fine? Shaas: So let the churches out of schools: An organisation with such a mafia history and ingnorant present (e.g. the world is 6000 yrs old), should not be allowed to bend the minds of our children. Barry you're responding to a guy who doesn't know that churches don't teach in public schools. So any argument he could make for it is moot. As you know, the fundies have been fighting to have prayer in public school for years. In recent years, in their new approach they claim that public schools teach a form of religion they call secular humanism and therefore public schools should allow prayer. No matter what kind of convoluted logic they use to challenge our tradition of separation of church and state, I hope it will never happen and the same goes for TM. It's a stretch but the only thing a public school could offer is extracurricular activity, like a TM or prayer club, and it would be totally voluntary. The benefits of TM are great for kids but you can't force it. If a private school wants to focus on religion or TM, fine. Just don't expect taxpayers to support it with school vouchers. Diverting tax dollars from public to private schools, is a sneaky damn way to destroy public schools and it thoroughly pisses me off. No Child Left Behind came from a guy who said, Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning? Bush's educational program is a disaster. It's designed to destroy public schools and it fits right in with the Republican mind set that privatizing everything, including schools is good for the economy. So in addition to bleeding public schools with vouchers for private schools, No Child Left Behind requires that a school meet testing standards or loose government funding, forcing it to close. It's yet another Republican nail in the coffin of public schools. Teachers are so overburdened complying with piles of NCLB mandates, there is little joy left in teaching. I taught school in Detroit and enjoyed it for many years. I have friends who teach in Fairfield public schools and I wouldn't want any part of what they have to put up with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: The man is dead not even a year, and they chuck his Science of Creative Intelligence? It IS rather astounding. I was one who thoroughly enjoyed the course, although I took in Humboldt, Ca. at the Cobb Mountain Academy, and had an awesome instructor. So perhaps that had a lot to do with it. On the other hand, in the field, I taught it a time or two, and still enjoyed it. Then some time later, (within the last few years), I had occassion to see one of the tapes, and could not get through five minutes because of the dullness. Go Figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
On Dec 13, 2008, at 7:29 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: f it were a law, and someone violated it by refusing to meditate 20 minutes twice a day, or by practicing some other form of prayer, meditation, or spiritual sadhana, what do you think would be a suitable punishment or fine? Make em take SCI--3X!--like I did. If that isn't punishment enough, I don't know what would be. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: The man is dead not even a year, and they chuck his Science of Creative Intelligence? SCI held out the hope that there was some profound, coherent theoretical basis for the practice of TM. But like everything else Maharishi did intellectually, it all boiled down to a long infomercial for TM and TM courses. Since it is really a bunch of circular arguments that TM is wonderful, it kind of makes sense that they need a new after sale marketing angle to convince people to take more courses. Back then Maharishi got so much mileage out of it being sciencey. Today's public has been around the marketing block more, so SCI's thin 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed style lacks the modern pizazz of Ronco's Ron Popeil pitching his latest pasta making gizmo. Plus today's public has been exposed to so many versions of Eastern philosophy that SCI would come off as more Mike Myers parody than intended. And now the organizations strong facade hiding its Hindu roots has really come down by its own choice. The movement has a real problem in appealing to a youthful public raised on the Internet and South Park. It is harder to find the wide eyed idealists, fat and happy enough with our baby boom economics to be so impractical. Like cigarette manufacturers, the future of the movement is probably in some other country, perhaps one of the Eastern Block countries or Russia if they ever take off economically. They might have the same spirituality/anti-establishment mix that made us such great marks. I'll bet that by now Maharishi expected more of a scientific consensus about how great all things TM were. But it hasn't happened. The believers think the science is compelling and the rest of the world gives it all a collective yawn and logs on to an instant teach yourself meditation site for FREE, supported by ads for yoga retreats, foam yoga mats made in China, and the latest Indian amalaki fruit elixir guaranteed to cure what ails ya (now with pomegranate juice added!) I think we all shared a very brief moment that may never be repeated. And although I tend to be a bit of a nostalgia sap, I know that is not such a bad thing. If the next generations is really gunna find the solution to ALL life's problems they need to check The Science of Creative Intelligence off their list and move one. We were the test and we gave it out all. It IS rather astounding. I was one who thoroughly enjoyed the course, although I took in Humboldt, Ca. at the Cobb Mountain Academy, and had an awesome instructor. So perhaps that had a lot to do with it. On the other hand, in the field, I taught it a time or two, and still enjoyed it. Then some time later, (within the last few years), I had occassion to see one of the tapes, and could not get through five minutes because of the dullness. Go Figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: -Original Message- From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion Dear Colleagues, I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of religion, and concludes that the TM program is not a religion. Who is this so called leading attorney? Why should we respect his opinion? And where is the legal definition of religion? There is no law which defines religion. Our definitions of religion in the west are colored by the types of religions we have in the west. This short article (not about TM) was helpful to me in understanding a bit about why the TBs are so adamant that TM (not just the technique, but the theories behind the technique) is scientific and not religious: http://tinyurl.com/6sbd8d http://www.svabhinava.org/HinduCivilization/MeeraNanda/ScienceHinduNationalism.htm The flip side of this relativism is what is called bandhu or correspondences in traditional Hindu texts and what postmodernists call bricolage or pastiche. If all ways of knowing or achieving nirvâna are considered merely partial or context-bound expressions of the same aspiration, or the same goal, to know reality of Brahman, then, one is free to simply treat different ways as functional homologues, as saying the same thing, or based upon similar fundamentals, differing only in their level of complexity and in their choice of words. If this is so, then one can safely take in an element from an alien tradition, for e.g. quantum physics which deals with non-causal, indeterminate mechanisms, and proclaim it to be similar to, saying the same thing as the Vedantic description of consciousness working through matter. The two become simply different standpoints, different perspectives on a given slice of reality. This kind of parallelism is repeatedly invoked by Hindu nationalists who simply proclaim that, to quote the words of Swami Vivekananda, the conclusions of modern science are the very conclusions Vedanta reached ages ago, only in modern science they are written in the language of matter (it is of no import that naturalism actually contradicts the present of spirit, or atman...) you appear generous and non-judgmental but you have evaded falsification by establishing a false analogy, or a false equivalence, between two entirely different or in fact contradictory systems of thought. Inotherwords, science and religion are the same thing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
I read in this forum years ago that Maharishi resisted the rigorous structure of the SCI course. He wanted to ramble and extemporize, but his secretaries insisted on a disciplined series of lessons. Perhaps the tapes are boring because he's not inspired. Comments interleaved below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: dhamiltony2k5 wrote: The man is dead not even a year, and they chuck his Science of Creative Intelligence? It IS rather astounding. I was one who thoroughly enjoyed the course, although I took in Humboldt, Ca. at the Cobb Mountain Academy, and had an awesome instructor. So perhaps that had a lot to do with it. ;-) More on this below. On the other hand, in the field, I taught it a time or two, and still enjoyed it. Then some time later, (within the last few years), I had occassion to see one of the tapes, and could not get through five minutes because of the dullness. Go Figure. My experience with SCI was that the teacher made the difference. I took the SCI course two evenings a week during a long summer in 1975. John Lediaev, a brilliant math professor at the University of Iowa, taught the first half of the course. The classes ran long and we stayed up way too late every class, but the course had some electricity. Then John bolted for the first six-month course, and his then-wife Lucy took over. Lucy stuck to the schedule, for which I was grateful, but the classes lost some punch. When I taught SCI in Iowa City a few years later, I stuck to the schedule and ran, I guess, a boring class. I still embrace the SCI worldview - you know; consciousness becomes aware of itself, starts vibrating, creates the world and comes back around to know itself. I find it to be a robust way to look at life. Has the TMO for sure abandoned the SCI course? Is it reworking the curriculum? I wonder.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
Inotherwords, science and religion are the same thing. It helps is you have a misunderstanding of and contempt for the the methods of science. Maharishi's belief system is basically unfalsifiable assertions on parade claiming to be science. (I was going to put some lipstick on a pig but it wouldn't hold still after the unfortunate mascara incident.) It also helps if you have a condescending view of religion (and I should know) which holds your Vedic system to be the root, and all religions to be the more limited branches of the tree. This view gives you permission to tell people what they need to hear for their own good so they can do TM and revive the root of their own tradition through the magical connection with being supplied by TM (Trademark protected.) David's attempt to make the case for TM (even just the practice) not being a belief system seems bogus to me. There are so many beliefs that you have to buy into to support the practice of TM and their source is all the same: Maharishi said so. What happens for long term practicers IMO is that they forget how many beliefs have to be in place to make it all work because they have become unconscious presuppositions which are beyond challenge. Our past discussion about the complex stress release normalizing the nervous system belief package is a case in point. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: -Original Message- From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion Dear Colleagues, I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of religion, and concludes that the TM program is not a religion. Who is this so called leading attorney? Why should we respect his opinion? And where is the legal definition of religion? There is no law which defines religion. Our definitions of religion in the west are colored by the types of religions we have in the west. This short article (not about TM) was helpful to me in understanding a bit about why the TBs are so adamant that TM (not just the technique, but the theories behind the technique) is scientific and not religious: http://tinyurl.com/6sbd8d http://www.svabhinava.org/HinduCivilization/MeeraNanda/ScienceHinduNationalism.htm The flip side of this relativism is what is called bandhu or correspondences in traditional Hindu texts and what postmodernists call bricolage or pastiche. If all ways of knowing or achieving nirvâna are considered merely partial or context-bound expressions of the same aspiration, or the same goal, to know reality of Brahman, then, one is free to simply treat different ways as functional homologues, as saying the same thing, or based upon similar fundamentals, differing only in their level of complexity and in their choice of words. If this is so, then one can safely take in an element from an alien tradition, for e.g. quantum physics which deals with non-causal, indeterminate mechanisms, and proclaim it to be similar to, saying the same thing as the Vedantic description of consciousness working through matter. The two become simply different standpoints, different perspectives on a given slice of reality. This kind of parallelism is repeatedly invoked by Hindu nationalists who simply proclaim that, to quote the words of Swami Vivekananda, the conclusions of modern science are the very conclusions Vedanta reached ages ago, only in modern science they are written in the language of matter (it is of no import that naturalism actually contradicts the present of spirit, or atman...) you appear generous and non-judgmental but you have evaded falsification by establishing a false analogy, or a false equivalence, between two entirely different or in fact contradictory systems of thought. Inotherwords, science and religion are the same thing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: David's attempt to make the case for TM (even just the practice) not being a belief system seems bogus to me. There are so many beliefs that you have to buy into to support the practice of TM and their source is all the same: Maharishi said so. What happens for long term practicers IMO is that they forget how many beliefs have to be in place to make it all work because they have become unconscious presuppositions which are beyond challenge. Our past discussion about the complex stress release normalizing the nervous system belief package is a case in point. Oh yes, you have to take this on faith. They say you do not have to believe anything to practice TM, but I say why would you practice TM unless you believed in it? You don't have to believe in God to pray either. Both are just techniques, after all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: snip Oh yes, you have to take this on faith. They say you do not have to believe anything to practice TM, but I say why would you practice TM unless you believed in it? Because you find it has beneficial effects in your life??? What a strange question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: Opps, get down to page 3 and SCI appears is mighty religious. People like DOJ say that the TM technique is not religious in and of itself. Simple TM doesn't appear overly strange to people and they might experience some relaxation benefit without buying into the whole TM metaphysical shebang. Note that DOJ says nothing about God consciousness or the like when he talks about the positive effects of TM. I bet $10 that not one non-believer has ever reached God consciousness. Without the belief system,which must be taken on faith, my bet is that most likely give TM up. (There is no research on this and can't be without the TMO's cooperation). Anecdotally, everyone I personally know who learned TM 2 X 20 no longer meditate except for the ones who went on to learn the siddhis and who buy into the theories of consciousness, etc. I can't imagine doing the siddhis unless I at least bought some of the theory behind them. Otherwise, it is just plan weird with the grunting and hopping and bronchial tubes, etc., no ifs, ands or buts about it. So anyone have any actual evidence that MUM has dropped SCI?
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: snip Oh yes, you have to take this on faith. They say you do not have to believe anything to practice TM, but I say why would you practice TM unless you believed in it? Because you find it has beneficial effects in your life??? What a strange question. Not to me. The question is causality and the parameters of how you are measuring the benifits. I'll give you an example. Today I feel a bit extra energetic and able to take on tasks that I had been putting off. If I had meditated this morning I would have ascribed this feeling today to that. But since I did a little extra exercise yesterday and went to bed a bit earlier than usual, I give that the credit. The truth is that I really don't know the cause, I'm just guessing. So these are the variables that I pay attention to as a non meditator, and if I feel extra clear those variables get the credit. Now I have gone back and forth with these variables many many times, unlike a regular meditator who wont stop for weeks and then star again repeatedly as a test. But the truth is that I still don't understand all the variables in how I feel each day. I know that once you get used to meditating you miss it and feel better when you do it. But if you stop for a while then you stop feeling those ups and downs. That is the problem I have with me being a regular meditator. I feel the need for rest in the afternoon that I never feel if have stopped meditating for a while. So I still think it comes down to the belief that TM is causing how you feel on any certain day, rather than the new vitamin or exercise or health food, or the moon phase, or whatever is your personal causative belief agent in your life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
Of all the words that might well be applied to Maharishi's teachings, the words religious, cultic, Hindu, are probably the most apt. Maharishi was initially very open about the fact that TM had everything to do with gods and that selection of the mantra was solely based on which god you liked. It's true, I have a recording of him saying just this. He was telling this to westerners in the USA in 1959. So what changed? It seems that Maharishi eventually discovered that westerners were largely giving up on religion, in fact for many the word religion was fast becoming a dirty word. I guess it is possible that those in charge of PR at TM HQ do not know the history of the movement. So they come up with their 'look we can prove it is not a religion!' stance. Like the shift from casual clothes to cult-like business suits, discredit them and their verbose attempts to deny TM's religious connections only serve to make them look untrustworthy. For centuries people have been settling down with their 'guru mantra' and 'meditating' - letting go of the mantra and 'transcending'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: Although the meditation itself is not (or at least doesn't *have* to be done as) a religious practice, the puja certainly is and every initiator is schooled and tested on exactly what the Sanskrit words mean and what internal feelings those words are supposed to evoke in the initiator. To say that the teacher may not know what they mean is not just disingenuous, it's a lie. And the puja unquestionably deals with and articulates a point of view regarding the ultimate truth. The initiator may not ultimately subscribe to the teachings contained in the puja, but we were all mightily encouraged to adopt and conform to those teachings and most, if not all my initiator colleagues did, and without question. If anything, we were eager to be taught what it really meant and what was the real truth behind what it was we were initiating people into. It seems absurd to me that movement apologists continue dancing around the issue. Who cares? For myself, I'm happy to have been a devoted member of a hindu cult; I'm happy to continue to subscribe to some of the tenets, though not as fervently or dogmatically as in the past; but pujas and yagyas and all day meditation programs at one end of the spectrum are certainly religious, even if twice daily meditation at the other end of the spectrum may not be. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: -Original Message- From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion Dear Colleagues, I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of religion, and concludes that the TM program is not a religion. Citing legal precedents, he argues that allowing TM practice in schools during quiet time does not conflict with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. All the best, David - Individual Effects The Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation program a religion? Carter Phillips Letter Re the Constitutionality of the TM Program in Public Schools. http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaReligion/ind ex .cfm#Phillips_letter#Phillips_letter -- -- -- -- --- April 9, 2007 Re: Transcendental Meditation Program in Public Schools Constitutional To Whom It May Concern: We have been asked to respond to concerns that the Transcendental Meditation (TM) Program, implemented in public schools, may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause generally forecloses school sanctioned religious activity. Because the TM program is not a religious activity, the Establishment Clause does not preclude its use in public schools. Even if the TM program were deemed to be a religious activity, as long as it is implemented as part of a Quiet Time program, its practice in the public schools still would not violate the First Amendment. BACKGROUND The TM Program in public schools voluntarily instructs students in the beneficial Transcendental Meditation technique that they can practice for 15 to 20 minutes twice a day during a school's Quiet Time program The program has been implemented successfully in public schools and other institutions
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: -Original Message- From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion Dear Colleagues, I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of religion, and concludes that the TM program is not a religion. Who is this so called leading attorney? Why should we respect his opinion? http://www.sidley.com/ourpeople/detail.aspx?attorney=123 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidley_Austin According to Wikipedia, President-elect Barack Obama was a summer associate in the Chicago office, but never joined the firm as a full-time associate. He met his wife, Michelle Obama (who was an associate at Sidley Austin at the time), while he was a summer associate at the firm. (For the gotcha crowd: This is just an interesting sidelight, not an argument for respecting Phillips's opinon, except perhaps to document that Sidley isn't some fly-by-night operation.) And where is the legal definition of religion? There is no law which defines religion. Phillips's letter argues that TM does not meet the definition of religion used by the courts to decide First Amendment (establishment clause) cases. It seems rather an obscurantist quibble to suggest this doesn't amount to a legal definition of religion. Our definitions of religion in the west are colored by the types of religions we have in the west. Irrelevant in the context of the definition used for First Amendment purposes. Anyone who is interested in becoming better informed on this issue might want to read a very thorough discussion by one of the appeals court judges in the Malnak v. Yogi case. It's in FFL's Files section: http://tinyurl.com/5lwzv4 Note that Judge Adams was exploring whether *TM + SCI* met the constitutional definition of a religion (this was a concurring opinion; the three judges were unanimous that TM + SCI did meet it). Phillips is discussing the same thing but with regard only to TM, the technique. This short article (not about TM) was helpful to me in understanding a bit about why the TBs are so adamant that TM (not just the technique, but the theories behind the technique) is scientific and not religious: But only a bit. The reasons are actually both more and less than what the quoted article proposes. For a much more complete understanding, see Ken Wilber's book Eye to Eye, chapters 1 and 2. (Wilber is not a TMer.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Dec 13, 2008, at 7:29 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: f it were a law, and someone violated it by refusing to meditate 20 minutes twice a day, or by practicing some other form of prayer, meditation, or spiritual sadhana, what do you think would be a suitable punishment or fine? Make em take SCI--3X!--like I did. If that isn't punishment enough, I don't know what would be. Sal Well, at least you attained VC victim consciousness. That's something worth talking about, isn't it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
On Dec 13, 2008, at 12:17 PM, raunchydog wrote: On Dec 13, 2008, at 7:29 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: f it were a law, and someone violated it by refusing to meditate 20 minutes twice a day, or by practicing some other form of prayer, meditation, or spiritual sadhana, what do you think would be a suitable punishment or fine? Make em take SCI--3X!--like I did. If that isn't punishment enough, I don't know what would be. Sal Well, at least you attained VC victim consciousness. That's something worth talking about, isn't it? Nah, I stopped just before that level, at BC--bullshit consciousness. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
On Dec 13, 2008, at 12:38 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I know that once you get used to meditating you miss it and feel better when you do it. But if you stop for a while then you stop feeling those ups and downs. That is the problem I have with me being a regular meditator. I feel the need for rest in the afternoon that I never feel if have stopped meditating for a while. Interesting insight, I had the same experience--I craved my 20 min. dive and esp. the corpse pose afterwards and the shakti working thru my body while I witnessed. When I gave up the belief, which I was conditioned on, that meditation had to be done before dinner, the whole deep rest trip and more importantly for me, meditating with my eyes closed (now mostly they're open), that fell away. Instead of transcending and then engaging in activity, eyes open meditation has one constantly alternating between inner and outer, so the buzz of withdrawal is replaced by a solid in the worldness and in the bodyness. Esp. if you do some walking meditation afterwards. Now I meditate whether I ate of not, I don't retreat into a hypnotic me-trance and the sense of connectedness, alertness and expansion of awareness is finer and more long-lasting. The need to retreat into something just isn't there anymore. Bye-bye withdrawn me decade, hello interconnected world and beings. I remember watching the recent BBC special on meditation which had a section on TM and FF. They go to interview this one TM physician via international teleconferencing--and the guys in meditation when he comes up on the TV. You can tell he's clearly aware that the others are waiting for him to come out of his hole, so the TM PR guy who's with the BBC scientist-reporter explains 'when we're in TM it's a deep rest, so we come out slowly, blah blah blah', I just had to chuckle at the robotic belief repetition and how little I missed that (now seeming) rather lame belief.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: snip Oh yes, you have to take this on faith. They say you do not have to believe anything to practice TM, but I say why would you practice TM unless you believed in it? Because you find it has beneficial effects in your life??? What a strange question. Not to me. The question is causality and the parameters of how you are measuring the benifits. I'll give you an example. Today I feel a bit extra energetic and able to take on tasks that I had been putting off. If I had meditated this morning I would have ascribed this feeling today to that. But since I did a little extra exercise yesterday and went to bed a bit earlier than usual, I give that the credit. The truth is that I really don't know the cause, I'm just guessing. Well, but of course we could say that about practically anything. If you *consistently* feel more energetic after you've begun a practice when you haven't made any other lifestyle changes, it seems reasonable to attribute the improvement to the practice. snip Now I have gone back and forth with these variables many many times, unlike a regular meditator who wont stop for weeks and then star again repeatedly as a test. I did that as a test a number of times. snip I know that once you get used to meditating you miss it and feel better when you do it. I never had that experience. When I'd stop, I'd feel perfectly fine for awhile, then gradually find myself slipping back to the way I used to feel before I started TM. snip So I still think it comes down to the belief that TM is causing how you feel on any certain day, rather than the new vitamin or exercise or health food, or the moon phase, or whatever is your personal causative belief agent in your life. I don't think TM is causing how I feel on any certain day. It's been an overall, holistic, consistent, steady improvement over time. I don't think Ruth was suggesting the belief in question was that you feel better, in any case. I think she was saying you continue to do it because you believe TM is good for you even if you never experience any improvements.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: snip Without the belief system, which must be taken on faith, my bet is that most likely give TM up. Two points. First, belief system does not equate to religion. There are many purely secular belief systems as well. Second, in my case and in many others I've heard, belief per se followed rather than preceded good experiences with the technique (during program and in daily life). I came to believe TM was what MMY said it was on the basis of my experience with it. When I began TM, I thought the theory behind it was just so much mumbo-jumbo (and said as much to my teacher during the three days of checking).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 9:02 AM, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net wrote: dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: The man is dead not even a year, and they chuck his Science of Creative Intelligence? It IS rather astounding. I was one who thoroughly enjoyed the course, although I took in Humboldt, Ca. at the Cobb Mountain Academy, and had an awesome instructor. Do you have your georgraphy right? Cobb Mountain is not far from the Wine Country. Humbuldt is way up the state.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
Cobb Mtn. is in Lake County, adjacent to Mendocino, Napa, and Sonoma counties, among others. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 9:02 AM, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: The man is dead not even a year, and they chuck his Science of Creative Intelligence? It IS rather astounding. I was one who thoroughly enjoyed the course, although I took in Humboldt, Ca. at the Cobb Mountain Academy, and had an awesome instructor. Do you have your georgraphy right? Cobb Mountain is not far from the Wine Country. Humbuldt is way up the state.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- Yea, but it has the appearance of a religion having been spawned in the soil of traditional Hinduism (Cf. recorded statements of Guru Dev regarding the Deva worship). Of course, MMY sliced and diced up the Tradition, extracting the bare technique; but the remnants of Tradition are right there in the Puja. No Christian Fundie worth his/her Salvation would dare tolerate a Hindu technique in schools and this blasphemous offense to the Christian Deity is to them, a form of Devil worship. The fact that the Christian Fundies are off their rockers misses the point: for every 100 TM'ers in a large US City, you can get hordes of fundies coming from every block. Even worse in the Midwest, and the South. Take a look at Dallas and Houston, and Denver - with those Megachurches. Can you imagine the furor an attempt to teach TM in public schools would cause.?? So, to DOJ - you must be living in a disconnect universe. Try matching up with reality. That's the way it is! In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: -Original Message- From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion Dear Colleagues, I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of religion, and concludes that the TM program is not a religion. Citing legal precedents, he argues that allowing TM practice in schools during quiet time does not conflict with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. All the best, David - Individual Effects The Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation program a religion? Carter Phillips Letter Re the Constitutionality of the TM Program in Public Schools. http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaReligion/ind ex .cfm#Phillips_letter#Phillips_letter --- April 9, 2007 Re: Transcendental Meditation Program in Public Schools Constitutional To Whom It May Concern: We have been asked to respond to concerns that the Transcendental Meditation (TM) Program, implemented in public schools, may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause generally forecloses school sanctioned religious activity. Because the TM program is not a religious activity, the Establishment Clause does not preclude its use in public schools. Even if the TM program were deemed to be a religious activity, as long as it is implemented as part of a Quiet Time program, its practice in the public schools still would not violate the First Amendment. BACKGROUND The TM Program in public schools voluntarily instructs students in the beneficial Transcendental Meditation technique that they can practice for 15 to 20 minutes twice a day during a school's Quiet Time program The program has been implemented successfully in public schools and other institutions around the country and offers many benefits to those who practice the technique. The TM Program is a simple and mechanical meditation technique that does not require or involve a specific belief system and consequently is not religious in tone or practice. Because the Program is not religious, it is an acceptable activity in public schools and the public school program does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ONLY APPLIES TO RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY The Establishment Clause provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . . U.S. Const. amend. I. The basic principle of the Establishment Clause in the public schools is that the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992) (quotation marks and alteration omitted). If no religion or religious practice is implicated, there is no Establishment Clause concern. - April 9, 2007 Page 2 In the sphere of public schools, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit religious instruction or religiously motivated curriculum decisions.1 For example, in public schools, the Establishment Clause prohibits officially authorized prayers, Engel v. Vital, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), see also Santa Fe
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
Om, word on the street is that SCI is being dropped as a course because is so unpopular with the students. So, the Rajas have concluded. Would that also be related to working TM's positioning on the religion issue. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: -Original Message- From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion Dear Colleagues, I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of religion, and concludes that the TM program is not a religion. Citing legal precedents, he argues that allowing TM practice in schools during quiet time does not conflict with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. All the best, David - Individual Effects The Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation program a religion? Carter Phillips Letter Re the Constitutionality of the TM Program in Public Schools. http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaReligion/ind ex .cfm#Phillips_letter#Phillips_letter --- April 9, 2007 Re: Transcendental Meditation Program in Public Schools Constitutional To Whom It May Concern: We have been asked to respond to concerns that the Transcendental Meditation (TM) Program, implemented in public schools, may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause generally forecloses school sanctioned religious activity. Because the TM program is not a religious activity, the Establishment Clause does not preclude its use in public schools. Even if the TM program were deemed to be a religious activity, as long as it is implemented as part of a Quiet Time program, its practice in the public schools still would not violate the First Amendment. BACKGROUND The TM Program in public schools voluntarily instructs students in the beneficial Transcendental Meditation technique that they can practice for 15 to 20 minutes twice a day during a school's Quiet Time program The program has been implemented successfully in public schools and other institutions around the country and offers many benefits to those who practice the technique. The TM Program is a simple and mechanical meditation technique that does not require or involve a specific belief system and consequently is not religious in tone or practice. Because the Program is not religious, it is an acceptable activity in public schools and the public school program does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ONLY APPLIES TO RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY The Establishment Clause provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . . U.S. Const. amend. I. The basic principle of the Establishment Clause in the public schools is that the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992) (quotation marks and alteration omitted). If no religion or religious practice is implicated, there is no Establishment Clause concern. - April 9, 2007 Page 2 In the sphere of public schools, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit religious instruction or religiously motivated curriculum decisions.1 For example, in public schools, the Establishment Clause prohibits officially authorized prayers, Engel v. Vital, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), see also Santa Fe School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), officially authorized Bible readings, School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), and exclusion of scientific teachings from the classroom if the exclusion is motivated by the view that the teachings conflict with religion, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). When neither religious belief nor religious practice is implicated, the Establishment Clause does not interfere with the curricular and extracurricular judgments that school administrators are best suited to make. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, in at least one context, that religions or religious beliefs are those that are based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
A good teacher can make anything exciting. SCI is boring because of crappy teachers and the teaching format which prevents creative thinking and interpretation. Sort of like the checking notes. Educational design by a committee of people that have no experience in teaching. --- On Fri, 12/12/08, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: From: dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, December 12, 2008, 6:49 PM Om, word on the street is that SCI is being dropped as a course because is so unpopular with the students. So, the Rajas have concluded. Would that also be related to working TM's positioning on the religion issue. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: -Original Message- From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion Dear Colleagues, I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of religion, and concludes that the TM program is not a religion. Citing legal precedents, he argues that allowing TM practice in schools during quiet time does not conflict with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. All the best, David - Individual Effects The Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation program a religion? Carter Phillips Letter Re the Constitutionality of the TM Program in Public Schools. http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaReligion/ind ex .cfm#Phillips_letter#Phillips_letter --- April 9, 2007 Re: Transcendental Meditation Program in Public Schools Constitutional To Whom It May Concern: We have been asked to respond to concerns that the Transcendental Meditation (TM) Program, implemented in public schools, may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause generally forecloses school sanctioned religious activity. Because the TM program is not a religious activity, the Establishment Clause does not preclude its use in public schools. Even if the TM program were deemed to be a religious activity, as long as it is implemented as part of a Quiet Time program, its practice in the public schools still would not violate the First Amendment. BACKGROUND The TM Program in public schools voluntarily instructs students in the beneficial Transcendental Meditation technique that they can practice for 15 to 20 minutes twice a day during a school's Quiet Time program The program has been implemented successfully in public schools and other institutions around the country and offers many benefits to those who practice the technique. The TM Program is a simple and mechanical meditation technique that does not require or involve a specific belief system and consequently is not religious in tone or practice. Because the Program is not religious, it is an acceptable activity in public schools and the public school program does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ONLY APPLIES TO RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY The Establishment Clause provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . . U.S. Const. amend. I. The basic principle of the Establishment Clause in the public schools is that the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992) (quotation marks and alteration omitted). If no religion or religious practice is implicated, there is no Establishment Clause concern. - April 9, 2007 Page 2 In the sphere of public schools, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit religious instruction or religiously motivated curriculum decisions.1 For example, in public schools, the Establishment Clause prohibits officially authorized prayers, Engel v. Vital, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), see also Santa Fe School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
Although the meditation itself is not (or at least doesn't *have* to be done as) a religious practice, the puja certainly is and every initiator is schooled and tested on exactly what the Sanskrit words mean and what internal feelings those words are supposed to evoke in the initiator. To say that the teacher may not know what they mean is not just disingenuous, it's a lie. And the puja unquestionably deals with and articulates a point of view regarding the ultimate truth. The initiator may not ultimately subscribe to the teachings contained in the puja, but we were all mightily encouraged to adopt and conform to those teachings and most, if not all my initiator colleagues did, and without question. If anything, we were eager to be taught what it really meant and what was the real truth behind what it was we were initiating people into. It seems absurd to me that movement apologists continue dancing around the issue. Who cares? For myself, I'm happy to have been a devoted member of a hindu cult; I'm happy to continue to subscribe to some of the tenets, though not as fervently or dogmatically as in the past; but pujas and yagyas and all day meditation programs at one end of the spectrum are certainly religious, even if twice daily meditation at the other end of the spectrum may not be. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: -Original Message- From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion Dear Colleagues, I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of religion, and concludes that the TM program is not a religion. Citing legal precedents, he argues that allowing TM practice in schools during quiet time does not conflict with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. All the best, David - Individual Effects The Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation program a religion? Carter Phillips Letter Re the Constitutionality of the TM Program in Public Schools. http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaReligion/ind ex .cfm#Phillips_letter#Phillips_letter --- April 9, 2007 Re: Transcendental Meditation Program in Public Schools Constitutional To Whom It May Concern: We have been asked to respond to concerns that the Transcendental Meditation (TM) Program, implemented in public schools, may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause generally forecloses school sanctioned religious activity. Because the TM program is not a religious activity, the Establishment Clause does not preclude its use in public schools. Even if the TM program were deemed to be a religious activity, as long as it is implemented as part of a Quiet Time program, its practice in the public schools still would not violate the First Amendment. BACKGROUND The TM Program in public schools voluntarily instructs students in the beneficial Transcendental Meditation technique that they can practice for 15 to 20 minutes twice a day during a school's Quiet Time program The program has been implemented successfully in public schools and other institutions around the country and offers many benefits to those who practice the technique. The TM Program is a simple and mechanical meditation technique that does not require or involve a specific belief system and consequently is not religious in tone or practice. Because the Program is not religious, it is an acceptable activity in public schools and the public school program does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ONLY APPLIES TO RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY The Establishment Clause provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . . U.S. Const. amend. I. The basic principle of the Establishment Clause in the public schools is that the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992) (quotation marks and alteration omitted). If no religion or religious practice is implicated, there is no Establishment Clause concern. - April 9, 2007 Page 2 In
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
Opps, get down to page 3 and SCI appears is mighty religious. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: -Original Message- From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion Dear Colleagues, I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a leading attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of religion, and concludes that the TM program is not a religion. Citing legal precedents, he argues that allowing TM practice in schools during quiet time does not conflict with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. All the best, David - Individual Effects The Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation program a religion? Carter Phillips Letter Re the Constitutionality of the TM Program in Public Schools. http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaReligion/ind ex .cfm#Phillips_letter#Phillips_letter --- April 9, 2007 Re: Transcendental Meditation Program in Public Schools Constitutional To Whom It May Concern: We have been asked to respond to concerns that the Transcendental Meditation (TM) Program, implemented in public schools, may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause generally forecloses school sanctioned religious activity. Because the TM program is not a religious activity, the Establishment Clause does not preclude its use in public schools. Even if the TM program were deemed to be a religious activity, as long as it is implemented as part of a Quiet Time program, its practice in the public schools still would not violate the First Amendment. BACKGROUND The TM Program in public schools voluntarily instructs students in the beneficial Transcendental Meditation technique that they can practice for 15 to 20 minutes twice a day during a school's Quiet Time program The program has been implemented successfully in public schools and other institutions around the country and offers many benefits to those who practice the technique. The TM Program is a simple and mechanical meditation technique that does not require or involve a specific belief system and consequently is not religious in tone or practice. Because the Program is not religious, it is an acceptable activity in public schools and the public school program does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ONLY APPLIES TO RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY The Establishment Clause provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . . U.S. Const. amend. I. The basic principle of the Establishment Clause in the public schools is that the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992) (quotation marks and alteration omitted). If no religion or religious practice is implicated, there is no Establishment Clause concern. - April 9, 2007 Page 2 In the sphere of public schools, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit religious instruction or religiously motivated curriculum decisions.1 For example, in public schools, the Establishment Clause prohibits officially authorized prayers, Engel v. Vital, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), see also Santa Fe School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), officially authorized Bible readings, School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), and exclusion of scientific teachings from the classroom if the exclusion is motivated by the view that the teachings conflict with religion, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). When neither religious belief nor religious practice is implicated, the Establishment Clause does not interfere with the curricular and extracurricular judgments that school administrators are best suited to make. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, in at least one context, that religions or religious beliefs are those that are based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 176 (1965); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 339- 40 (1970). One commonly accepted
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: --- Yea, but it has the appearance of a religion having been spawned in the soil of traditional Hinduism My definition of a religion is when you say your deity is better/most important, than all others. There is no other possible definition of religion (no matter how hard you try. ) As such, 'hinduism' is not a religion, no more than existentialism or postmodernism is a religion. SO00youfuxero...how is Hinduism a religion? It is not even a coherent philosophy. Hinduism is a word made up by westerners. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: Although the meditation itself is not (or at least doesn't *have* to be done as) a religious practice, the puja certainly is and every initiator is schooled and tested on exactly what the Sanskrit words mean and what internal feelings those words are supposed to evoke in the initiator. To say that the teacher may not know what they mean is not just disingenuous, it's a lie. And the puja unquestionably deals with and articulates a point of view regarding the ultimate truth. The initiator may not ultimately subscribe to the teachings contained in the puja, but we were all mightily encouraged to adopt and conform to those teachings and most, if not all my initiator colleagues did, and without question. If anything, we were eager to be taught what it really meant and what was the real truth behind what it was we were initiating people into. It seems absurd to me that movement apologists continue dancing around the issue. Who cares? For myself, I'm happy to have been a devoted member of a hindu cult; I'm happy to continue to subscribe to some of the tenets, though not as fervently or dogmatically as in the past; but pujas and yagyas and all day meditation programs at one end of the spectrum are certainly religious, even if twice daily meditation at the other end of the spectrum may not be. I agree with you. IMO TM is a science of Religion, or a Religious Science. The reason Religion is such a big 'bug a boo' to the TMorg and MMY is the deplorable state Religion is in todaywho wants that! Ha! Also MMY determined he could have a broader appeal if he eliminated any Religious connotations, (like Patanjali's first two limbs, Yama and Niyama) and he was right, unfortunately that leaves you with a half a loaf and reduces the effectiveness of TM by ignoring the recommendations Patanjali had. With MMY there are only 6 *means* to Yoga and not 8 like Patanjali had recommeded. When or if he was ever going to reinstate the full 8 limbs or means to Yoga is anybody's guessI guess it's too late for that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David OJ: Attorney's Letter re TM Religion
---Call it what you want: Guru Dev advocated Deity worship as a means to realize Brahman. Saying that's not a religion is rather far- fetched, don't you think. The standard Wiki definition of religion should match Guru Dev's orientation and Devotion to the gods. (something MMY dismissed) In truth worshipping any of the gods is really worship of Bhagavan. The aim of devotees is really to feel Bhagavan everywhere. All those who are fully absorbed in devotion to Bhagavad (God, Vishnu) are VaishhNava (devotees of Vishnu). Someone who night and day is stealing, deceitful and doing other bad behaviour etc yet thinking himself to be a devotee of VishhNu, cannot be a VaishNava. Shiva, Ganesha, Surya, Shakti (Durga, Lakshmi) etc are the limbs of Bhagavan. Any devotee of Shiva can say 'Our Shankar (Shiva) is really Bhagavan', any follower of Surya can say that 'Surya is really Bhagavan', then this is really like not knowing the whole shape of the elephant. Some blind men took hold of an elephant's trunk and said 'This elephant it is like a pestle.' Seizing the foot one said it was like a pillar. Taking the ear one said it was like a winnowing basket. The thing is really this that the blind men having seen the elephant got stirred up in dispute. He who knows the whole form of the elephant will never say that the elephant is similar to a winnowing basket or to a pestle. In the same way, he who has taken a good understanding of Bhagavan, he can never say that Shiva is the true form of Bhagavan or Ganesha is the true form of Bhagavan or that the four-armed form of VishhNu is really the form of Bhagavan. He who is familiar with the essence of Bhagavat (God) that all these several forms are really the separate parts or limbs of Paramatma (God). In truth worshipping any of the gods is really worship of Bhagavan. This is really the established truth of the shaastra. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: --- Yea, but it has the appearance of a religion having been spawned in the soil of traditional Hinduism My definition of a religion is when you say your deity is better/most important, than all others. There is no other possible definition of religion (no matter how hard you try. ) As such, 'hinduism' is not a religion, no more than existentialism or postmodernism is a religion. SO00youfuxero...how is Hinduism a religion? It is not even a coherent philosophy. Hinduism is a word made up by westerners. OffWorld
