[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity 
  
  no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig 
  
  LEnglish5@ wrote:
  snip
Only if MMY is wrong about Vedic Science in the 
first place, of course
   
   He is.  Vedic Science is a non sequitur.
  
  I think she means oxomoron. No wonder she said I 
  don't use the term non sequitur properly!
 
 Heehee. But I don't know how to *spell* oxymoron!


Me neither, apparently. :-/


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity 
 
 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig 
 
 LEnglish5@ wrote:
 snip
   Only if MMY is wrong about Vedic Science in the 
   first place, of course
  
  He is.  Vedic Science is a non sequitur.
 
 I think she means oxomoron. No wonder she said I 
 don't use the term non sequitur properly!

Heehee. But I don't know how to *spell* oxymoron!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity 
 
 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig 
 
 LEnglish5@ wrote:
 snip
   Only if MMY is wrong about Vedic Science in the 
   first place, of course
  
  He is.  Vedic Science is a non sequitur.
 
 I think she means oxomoron. No wonder she said I 
 don't use the term non sequitur properly!

Heehee. But I don't know how to *spell* oxymoron!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

I'm out of town using somebody else's computer, 
so I'm only going to make one point in response
to this until I get back, but it deals with what
I would characterize as intellectual sloppiness
on Ruth's part--not the only example in her post
by any means, but a very clearcut example:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 
wrote:

 This part of Judy and my exchange is interesting. I am doing this 
not
 to address the arguments we make but her style, which Judy maintains
 is one that exposes intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty.
snip
 I said:
  
   And we disagree as to the extent of the  problem.
Ex teachers, Curtis, Turq, others, how much of
   the TTC was devoted to learning to teach?
 
 Judy said:
  Irrelevant (although Patrick, for one, disagrees with
  you).
 
 Again, she declares the conclusion without
 arguing why it is irrelevant.

This response is intellectually sloppy because I
had already explained why it was irrelevant.

I had said I doubted Ruth could teach TM properly
without taking TTC, and she disagreed, saying not
that much of TTC was devoted to learning how to
teach TM, as she does again above.

I replied that I tended to agree about how much of
TTC was spent learning the mechanics of instruction
in TM, but that TTC was the only place you could
learn those mechanics. Therefore, the percentage of
TTC time devoted to the mechanics was irrelevant to
whether Ruth could instruct someone in TM without
having taken TTC.

Ruth didn't address that point at all. Instead, she
repeated her original point as if I had never raised
that objection.

My Irrelevant response above was by way of a
reminder: I already dealt with this point, Ruth.
I already explained why I thought it was irrelevant.

Again, the issue I had been addressing was whether
Ruth, as she had claimed, could teach TM successfully
without taking TTC. If TTC is the only place that
will give you the mechanics of instruction in TM,
it's irrelevant how much of TTC is devoted to that
aspect.

Did Ruth forget what the issue was? Was she trying
to change the subject? Did she not want to address
my point? I can think of several possible responses
she *could* have made that would have advanced the
discussion. I don't know why she didn't make any of
them. But for her to claim that I had declared the
conclusion irrelevant without arguing why it was
irrelevant is simply inaccurate, intellectually
sloppy.

More when I return...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  The dogma gets in my way on a number of points, but
  I sure appreciate Christianity a whole lot more than
  I did pre-TM. I've lived most of my life without a
  religious practice, except for brief attempts to get
  into it to see what it was like, so I don't really
  feel a lack in that department. But it wouldn't
  surprise me a bit if I began to be drawn to it, and
  I'd welcome it. I could really dig a Christian 
  congregation led by a minister who practiced TM and
  preached the Gospel according to SCI.
 
 Tom Miller, a long time TM teacher, was my first SCI teacher in 1972
 in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. He became a priest for the Liberal
 Catholic Church and established St. Gabriel and All Angels in
 Fairfield about 20 years ago http://tinyurl.com/7ukvrt I go through
 phases of attending regularly and enjoy the long liturgy, and short
 sermon in the light of SCI. The congregation, mostly TM'ers, is small
 but packed on Christmas Eve and Easter. Even those who profess no
 religion, end up asking Tom to marry and bury loved ones. In times of
 need, who do you call? The Big Guy in the Sky. Church feels like
 family and I'm grateful for Tom's commitment to serving our community.

I think this is an important addition to a Siddha and meditator's
life, without the moral and ethical teachings of Religion most
meditators are left without outer guidance and proper spiritual
orientation.

The guidance Religion gives is very necessary for most sincere people,
to think that TM alone is just going to bestow these virtues (what the
tmorg suggests) is folly IMO.

People need inner and outer guidance, since TM is not being taught as
a Religion a vast number of meditators are living life without this
benefit, sad! 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[raunchydog]

I'm more or a feel person than a dogma person. It's why I like
LLC. It has esoteric roots and leaves a lot of room for intellectual
curiosity. We all fall short of being the best person we can, able to
live harmoniously with others and embrace every moment joyously. So
for me LLC is like one big puja that recharges my love battery. It's
an immersion in the source of one's Self where you don't feel the THOU
SHALT NOTS like a sword hanging over your head threatening to strike
you dead and damn you to Hell if you don't behave yourself, I feel the
love and that's all that matters.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:
 
 I think this is an important addition to a Siddha and meditator's
 life, without the moral and ethical teachings of Religion most
 meditators are left without outer guidance and proper spiritual
 orientation.
 
 The guidance Religion gives is very necessary for most sincere people,
 to think that TM alone is just going to bestow these virtues (what the
 tmorg suggests) is folly IMO.
 
 People need inner and outer guidance, since TM is not being taught as
 a Religion a vast number of meditators are living life without this
 benefit, sad!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:
This part of Judy and my exchange is interesting.  I am doing this not
to address the arguments we make but her style, which Judy maintains
is one that exposes intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty.  Judy,
this isn't addressed to you, but to the board.  Of course, you are
free to respond but don't assume any failure to respond on my part
means anything.

I said:
 
Anyone good at putting someone in a suggestible
state could teach TM.
  
Judy said:
   Naah, has nothing to do with suggestibility.
  \
I said:
  And I say you are wrong.  Again, you make a 
  conclusory statement that adds nothing.

Judy said:
 
 It's you who has a tendency to make such statements.
 I'm showing you what it feels like to be on the other
 end.

I said:
 
  Just by saying something isn't so, doesn't make 
  itnot so.
 
Judy said:
 Something for you to remember.


What is interesting about this exchange is Judy's style of needing to
control an argument.  She clearly makes a conclusory statement Naah,
has nothing to do with suggestibility, and when called on it calls me
conclusory.  Then she is the one who purports to be the one
intolerant of intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty.  


Back to the conversaition: 

I said:
  People who are familiar with hypnotism would know 
  that the initiation and checking procedures are 
  methods to put people in a suggestible state.
Judy said:
 Yes, I'm aware of that. However, that hypnotists use
 somewhat methods does not mean that's how they're
 being used in TM instruction and checking. That's a
 false equivalence.

OK, Judy's statement begs the question: is TM initiation and checking
a procedure different than putting people in a suggestible state? 
Nothing she said in this exchange counters the similarity between the
two.  
 

Then I went on to say:
  So what.  It isn't like that is a bad thing.  Why
  are Tm'ers so defensive about the effect of 
  checking and initiation?

Judy replied:
 
 We aren't defensive about the effect of checking and
 instruction. We do get annoyed when that effect is 
 called suggestion, because it indicates inadequate
 understanding of TM.
 

Again, she makes a conclusion without arguing why it is an inadequate
understanding of TM.  First of all, I was not talking about TM the
technique, I was talking about initiation and checking procedures. 
So, what is different?  I still don't have an answer from her.  Is it
the power of the puja, enlivening the mantra?  What is the evidence
for that?  

Now back to the discussion:


I said:
  
  And we disagree as to the extent of the  problem. 
   Ex teachers, Curtis, Turq, others,  how much of 
  the TTC was devoted to learning to teach?

Judy said:
 Irrelevant (although Patrick, for one, disagrees with
 you).

Again, she declares the conclusion without arguing why it is
irrelevant.  I believe it is very relevant and the teacher who said he
spent all the time learning to teach also said most of the time was
spent rounding.  How is that learning to teach?  No one gives me an
explanation for that.


I said:
  How hard is it to teach?

Judy said:
 Not that hard, but it depends on what you mean by
 teach. Just going through the procedure is easy;
 the issue is whether the students *get it* right 
 away. Many do, but some don't. Some get it and then
 lose it, including after many years of practice.

OK teachers, how much time did you spend learning to determine if the
student has it right?  Not much.  The procedure for checking is very
rigid.  If the student gives a yes answer or no answer to various
questions, the next step is dictated.  Not so hard.

Judy said:
 
 Everything else that human beings learn to do 
 involves effort and intention. To practice TM, in
 contrast, involves *not-doing*: no effort, no
 intention. How do you learn to not-do? It's a
 contradiction in terms, and just the opposite from
 the way we approach any other endeavor.
 
 Actually there's one other endeavor that involves
 not-doing, and that's going to sleep. *Trying* to go
 to sleep is very likely to be ineffective at best and
 counterproductive at worst. That parallel is
 significant.

OK, this has some substance in it that can be discussed and is not
mere conclusions.  In this case, I still agree, lazy daydreaming
involves next to no effort much like mediating involves next to no
effort.  I believe we have discussed here in the past the effortless
issue.  There is effort, just not much.  Easy effort.  You do go back
to your mantra after all.  




I said:
  No, not dishonest nor clumsy.  I just am using your
  type of  techniques to talk to you.  You use tricks 
  like claiming non sequitur when something is not 
  so that you can contol the conversation.

Judy said:
 
 If I did that, it would be dishonest. Yet you claim
 you're not being dishonest but that you're using my 
 type of techniques. Make up your mind.
 
 I don't believe I *do* claim something is a non 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

This part of Judy and my exchange is interesting. I am doing this not
to address the arguments we make but her style, which Judy maintains
is one that exposes intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty. Judy,
this isn't addressed to you, but to the board. Of course, you are
free to respond but don't assume any failure to respond on my part
means anything.

I said:

Anyone good at putting someone in a suggestible
state could teach TM.
  
Judy said:
   Naah, has nothing to do with suggestibility.
  \
I said:
  And I say you are wrong. Again, you make a
  conclusory statement that adds nothing.

Judy said:

 It's you who has a tendency to make such statements.
 I'm showing you what it feels like to be on the other
 end.

I said:

  Just by saying something isn't so, doesn't make
  itnot so.

Judy said:
 Something for you to remember.


What is interesting about this exchange is Judy's style of needing to
control an argument. She clearly makes a conclusory statement Naah,
has nothing to do with suggestibility, and when called on it calls me
conclusory. Then she is the one who purports to be the one
intolerant of intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty.


Back to the conversaition:

I said:
  People who are familiar with hypnotism would know
  that the initiation and checking procedures are
  methods to put people in a suggestible state.
Judy said:
 Yes, I'm aware of that. However, that hypnotists use
 somewhat methods does not mean that's how they're
 being used in TM instruction and checking. That's a
 false equivalence.

OK, Judy's statement begs the question: is TM initiation and checking
a procedure different than putting people in a suggestible state?
Nothing she said in this exchange counters the similarity between the
two.


Then I went on to say:
  So what. It isn't like that is a bad thing. Why
  are Tm'ers so defensive about the effect of
  checking and initiation?

Judy replied:

 We aren't defensive about the effect of checking and
 instruction. We do get annoyed when that effect is
 called suggestion, because it indicates inadequate
 understanding of TM.


Again, she makes a conclusion without arguing why it is an inadequate
understanding of TM. First of all, I was not talking about TM the
technique, I was talking about initiation and checking procedures.
So, what is different? I still don't have an answer from her. Is it
the power of the puja, enlivening the mantra? What is the evidence
for that?

Now back to the discussion:


I said:
 
  And we disagree as to the extent of the  problem.
   Ex teachers, Curtis, Turq, others, how much of
  the TTC was devoted to learning to teach?

Judy said:
 Irrelevant (although Patrick, for one, disagrees with
 you).

Again, she declares the conclusion without arguing why it is
irrelevant. I believe it is very relevant and the teacher who said he
spent all the time learning to teach also said most of the time was
spent rounding. How is that learning to teach? No one gives me an
explanation for that.



Judy maintains that the only reason someone might be afraid of her is
if they tend to be intellectually sloppy or dishonest. I have a
couple of thoughts on that. This is an internet forum. Many people
talk off the cuff. That is the nature of internet conversation. We
are not defending dissertations. We don't need someone to police our
conversations. If someone wants to be meticulous, they can do so
themselves. To harp on others constantly about how they speak gets
nasty. Plus, she has her own sloppiness as well. She makes
conclusiory statements. She misuses non sequitur when a statement
does logically fit in a discussion but she just doesn't want to go
that route. She is the master of ad hominem , focusing on the
character of the person advancing advancing the argument, seeking to
discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. See, don't I
sound nasty when criticizing how Judy argues?  That is how she sounds
to me when she criticizes how we argue.

OK, I am signing off now. I am sure I will need to satisfy my TM
curiosity and will be back again after I can follow my own ground
rules. :)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[curtisdeltablues]

Why this religious thread matters to me:

One of the reasons I am not religious is that I notice that geography
trumps all else with people's belief in the superiority of their
religious perspective.  There is too strong an ethnocentric bias for
me to take any of them seriously.  Maharishi was a perfect example of
this.  He believed that his precious India had the supreme knowledge
and that other religions represented less than the full expression of
what he called Natural Law.

And isn't it a coincidence that those born in the lands of Allah find
all other POVs beneath them and their full revelation from God's
messenger Mohammad?

And lucky for Tom Cruse that he lived a privileged enough life to be
around celebrity Scientologists so he could find the one true way to
get clear.

And there we were, little aspiring hippies or whatever version of 60's
and 70's baby boomer cushiness that we were to have had the luxury of
being exposed to Eastern thought through our pop star idols.

So we happened to be exposed to Maharishi's teaching, or Guru
Maharaji's or Swami Baktividanta's Hari Krishna, and low and behold we
too conclude to have found the highest teaching that pulls everyone
else's POV together. (but beneath us)

I think all religious people should get over themselves to make a
better more understanding world.  We are all displaced Africans and
everywhere humans go they make up some story about how great their
particular version of humanity is over others.   They have the ONLY
way to heaven, or the highest teaching or the whateveritude that makes
them believe that they alone have the brass ring of life firmly in
their hand, all due to circumstances of their birth more than any
other factor.  The guy living in a hut in Afghanistan isn't going to
become a Scientologist or be able to afford TM courses despite the
roving missionaries going around the world telling people how great
their version of reality is.

So this topic does matter to me profoundly despite my non religious
nature today.  Because of my non religious nature.

I don't believe that believing in Christ gets you eternal life and I
don't believe that the alteration of mind brought about from TM makes
a person conscious beyond the grave.  I see little evidence that
practicing TM makes people more than just idealistic and a bit too
pleased with themselves for having found IT.

So I appreciate continuing this discussion with Judy and others with
this as my stated background perspective.  I have interspersed my
comments into Judy's last email. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:
snip
  A bit. But my point is about Christians today and
  their relationship with the OKay Dokey presentation
  of TM as no problem, or conflict with religion.
 
 Yeah, that's superficial. But if you can get 'em
 meditating, they may begin to get at that deeper
 level where the dogmatic conflicts (which TM does
 gloss over) dissolve.

This is my point.  I spent time with the group most predisposed to
this POV, recluse Christian monks who did TM.  I checked them and they
did it right according to Maharishi's instructions.  But they didn't
feel that this conflict dissolved, it became more vivid that Maharishi
did not share their view of spirituality.  If Maharishi struck out
with this crew, then his attempts at ecumenical perspective on TM is
doomed IMO.  But as I have said Maharishi was not a true ecumenical
dude.  He is a Hindu triumphalist.  

 
   In traditional Christianity, all we have *left* of 
   what Jesus himself taught is the exoteric teachings, 
   and we're not even sure of those.
  
  Well that is your take.  Fundamentalists are fine with
  their own version which they believe is complete.
 
 Yeah, but there's a pretty solid scholarly consensus
 on this point.

I think we are both right depending on which Christians you talk with.

 
 snip
   Once Christianity became established, all the
   mystical stuff was cut out. Esoteric practice and
   experience couldn't be controlled so easily by a 
   hierarchy. The Church wanted salvation to be 
   available only through its own anointed staff, on 
   its terms. It didn't want people going off and 
   having their own exalted experiences via techniques 
   they could perform by themselves.
  
  Presuming that these are valid important experiences
  and not a side track of superstitious humans in altered
  states.
 
 You think the Church in the first centuries after
 Christ figured that out that it was a sidetrack, huh?
 It would be delighted to know you buy that.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  They might have been just as
confused about the meaning of their internal states as people today.

 
   If Jesus had taught a technique for transcending, it
   was in the Church's interests to help it get lost, if
   that didn't happen on its own.
  
  I think there is a pretty long tradition of people who
  are into these states of mind in Christianity.  The
  monastic traditions certainly 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 Why this religious thread matters to me:
 
 One of the reasons I am not religious is that I notice that geography
 trumps all else with people's belief in the superiority of their
 religious perspective.  

There is no need for me to post on this forum.  Curtis says it all
better than I do.  I bow to you Curtis!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  Why this religious thread matters to me:
  
  One of the reasons I am not religious is that I notice that geography
  trumps all else with people's belief in the superiority of their
  religious perspective.  
 
 There is no need for me to post on this forum.  Curtis says it all
 better than I do.  I bow to you Curtis!

I am a fan of yours Ruth, please don't stop posting!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[lurkernomore20002000]

 ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 OK, I am signing off now. I am sure I will need to satisfy my TM
 curiosity and will be back again after I can follow my own ground
 rules. :)

That's always the rule. It was nice to have you around, (even though I 
haven't been around much)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[I am the eternal]

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 1:39 AM, raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:
 
  The dogma gets in my way on a number of points, but
  I sure appreciate Christianity a whole lot more than
  I did pre-TM. I've lived most of my life without a
  religious practice, except for brief attempts to get
  into it to see what it was like, so I don't really
  feel a lack in that department. But it wouldn't
  surprise me a bit if I began to be drawn to it, and
  I'd welcome it. I could really dig a Christian
  congregation led by a minister who practiced TM and
  preached the Gospel according to SCI.

 Tom Miller, a long time TM teacher, was my first SCI teacher in 1972
 in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. He became a priest for the Liberal
 Catholic Church and established St. Gabriel and All Angels in
 Fairfield about 20 years ago http://tinyurl.com/7ukvrt I go through
 phases of attending regularly and enjoy the long liturgy, and short
 sermon in the light of SCI. The congregation, mostly TM'ers, is small
 but packed on Christmas Eve and Easter. Even those who profess no
 religion, end up asking Tom to marry and bury loved ones. In times of
 need, who do you call? The Big Guy in the Sky. Church feels like
 family and I'm grateful for Tom's commitment to serving our community.


Tom Miller and his deacons are saints in my book.  I guess it's become a
Christmas tradition to gather as many people as we have cars for: men,
women, RC Catholics from many countries, Muslims, Israeli Jews and go to the
Christmas benediction at St. Gabriel and All Angels.  A wonderful joy,
especially when you've just put in 6-8 hours of rounding in one of the
domes.  I pass around notes to my friends on what this part of the
benediction means, what this or that word means.  My friends and I have a
ball.

Thanks Tom and the deacons.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   Why this religious thread matters to me:
   
   One of the reasons I am not religious is that I notice that
geography
   trumps all else with people's belief in the superiority of their
   religious perspective.  
  
  There is no need for me to post on this forum.  Curtis says it all
  better than I do.  I bow to you Curtis!
 
 I am a fan of yours Ruth, please don't stop posting!

Curtis, I agree. All the voices matter. Ruth keep posting, you have a
lot to contribute to the flavor of FF Life. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 
wrote:

 
 People just seem to want to score points.  I want to find out why
 people meditate,

To grow

 why people quit,

many become scared of the growth they thus experienced, some have 
jealous partners

 how people think

Can't be of help here, sorry ;-)

 and why the TMO
 seems to eat some people alive.

Maharishi always challenged the smallness of thinking, the lack of 
vision and hope in humanity, including ofcourse the members of His 
Movement. Yet He kept going, year after year, always uplifting, 
always full of life itself. Somehow I think He was aware of this 
challenge very early on in His Mission to transform Kali- into Sat-
Yuga. Someone must have reminded Him that He was about to try to 
solve an almost impossible task. But He did just that; in 1975 He 
inaugurated the Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment.

The TMO swallows noone, yet confronted with the smallness of their 
own thinking, some weak souls will swear it does. You see this self-
mockery every day here on FFL.

Was this short and superfiscial answers to your inquiery ? Yes it 
was, because there may be as many answers to your questions as the 
number of fortunate souls at this time in history who came into 
contact with this remarkable Master.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero 

 yifux...@... wrote:

 --Right. If there were a Garden of Eden for the
 truth, Vaj would be on the wrong side of the 
 garden.  The dude he mentions (Meera Nanda is the 
 guys's name)...is an idiot. Here's what the 
 swaveda website owner says about him:
 
 In this article cluttered with biased attacks on 
 Hindutva, the author [the jerk Vaj admires] also 
 makes sweeping statements as follows: In 
 reality, everything we know about the workings of 
 nature through the methods of modern science 
 radically disconfirms the presence of any 
 morally significant gunas, or shakti, or any
 other form of consciousness in nature, as taught 
 by the Vedic cosmology which treats nature as a 
 manifestation of divine consciousness. Far from 
 there being `no conflict' between science and 
 Hinduism, a scientific understanding of nature 
 completely and radically negates the `eternal 
 laws' of Hindu dharma which teach an identity 
 between spirit and matter. 

How could science ever possibly radically negate
a proposed identity between spirit and matter? How
could it radically disconfirm the presence of
consciousness in nature?

At most, it could fail to find evidence to confirm
the premises. But they aren't anything science
could detect if they *were* the case, so how does
not detecting them radically disconfirm or 
radically negate them?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 The
  experience of transcending restores the
  original intention of religion, which is to 
  give a direct experience of transcending by
  whatever means necessary: prayer, rosary, 
  chanting, dancing, singing or climbing a 
  mountain on your knees, whatever floats your 
  boat. 
 
 I think the point is that this claim about 
 restoring what was the original intention of 
 religion is an expression of Maharishi's
 grandiosity that he would know such a thing.  It 
 is coming from a Hindu perspective on what 
 religion is all about.

Curtis, MMY is hardly the first to suggest that
transcendence was the original basis for religion. 

It's almost a cliche, and was--in the West as 
well as the East--long before MMY came on the scene.
That doesn't make it *true*, of course, in and of
itself, but it's important to know that many people
have come to the same conclusion (not with reference
to TM(TM) specifically, of course).

 It has nothing to do with most versions of 
 Christianity.  It might apply to certain groups 
 of mystical Christianity which might value such 
 experiences.  But even then it would not be 
 outside the acceptance of Christ as a redeemer 
 and his role in opening the possibility for 
 eternal life as their original intention of 
 religion

You can't tell exactly what Christianity was 
originally about from the Bible or the way it's come 
to be taught over the centuries. What might early 
Christians have been doing in the catacombs? Have 
you ever read any of Paul's descriptions of his own 
experiences? Do you know anything about Gnostic
Christianity? The Essenes?

In traditional Christianity, all we have *left* of 
what Jesus himself taught is the exoteric teachings, 
and we're not even sure of those.

We do now have the Nag Hammadi and other Gnostic 
texts, which are profoundly mystical.

Once Christianity became established, all the
mystical stuff was cut out. Esoteric practice and
experience couldn't be controlled so easily by a 
hierarchy. The Church wanted salvation to be 
available only through its own anointed staff, on 
its terms. It didn't want people going off and 
having their own exalted experiences via techniques 
they could perform by themselves.

If Jesus had taught a technique for transcending, it
was in the Church's interests to help it get lost, if
that didn't happen on its own.

What MMY was saying, as I understand him, is that
all religions--at least the old established
religions--were originally mystical (or gnostic)
in their nature and practice. In most cases, of
course, we don't have much in the way of
historical records of their earliest days, so it's
not something you could likely ever prove. But the
evidence that's available certainly isn't
inconsistent with that thesis.

And most religions *do* have an esoteric version: 
Kabbalah in Judaism, Sufism in Islam, mystical 
Christianity. Eastern religions too: Hinduism,
Buddhism, and Taoism all have an esoteric aspect
for the contemplative and a popular aspect for
the householder. There's always been that parallel
theme, but it's had to stay more or less 
underground (at least in the West) to avoid
conflict with the powers that be.

 . Even the reclusive Christian monks I hung out 
 with did not buy into Maharishi's perspective 
 what the original intention of religion is,

And their argument against it was...?

No kidding, Curtis, traditional Christianity is
*designed* to keep practitioners from getting into
mysticism.

 or that he had somehow, out of all the other 
 religions people, discovered it.

He didn't discover it, and I seriously doubt he
ever claimed he did. As I said, it's a very old idea, 
not at all uncommon.

From another post of yours on the same topic:

 But it is also important for me to speak up when I 
 read about TM's relation to religious beliefs. In 
 my experience, the compatibility is superficial. If 
 you go into Maharishi's teaching beyond the 
 brochure you find out that if you want to get into 
 either one deeply, there will be conflicts.

That's basically true, but in my own explorations of
this, it seems to me there's an even deeper, more 
fundamental (as opposed to superficial) level at 
which the conflict dissolves. It does transform one's
understanding of what the teachings of a religion are
*about*, primarily by seeing them as metaphors for
the nature and mechanics of consciousness, i.e., for
what MMY taught as SCI.

The conflicts you're talking about are on the much
more concrete level of dogma, which is what the
original metaphors hardened into when the experience
of transcendence that was the referent for the
metaphors was lost.

If you don't know what the referent is for a 
metaphor, all you can do with it is either take it
literally or ignore it altogether.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj 

vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Dec 30, 2008, at 9:45 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
  Judy, Vaj did not say one dishonest thing here. 
  He asked if you said something, and if you had
  that position, you would be a TB.

But that wouldn't be true.

 You said
  that you were stating MMY's position, which may 
  or may not be your position.   End of story.
 
 Yeah, typical Judy schlock. I figured she'd claim 
 it was Maharishi's claim rather than hers since 
 it gave her an easy, dishonest way out.

As usual, it's Vaj who's being dishonest. First, as
he knows, I was explicit from the start that I was
correcting Ruth's misunderstanding about MMY's take
on TM and religion. Second, I said explicitly that
it was my *working hypothesis*--in other words, I
assume it's true until I see evidence that it 
isn't. But it's not a True Belief, since I'm
perfectly willing to entertain evidence to the
contrary and change my working hypothesis if that
evidence is convincing.
  
 Typical.
 
 Since I had excellent results with TM (by TMO
 standards),

Unfortunately those results were not in the
direction of valuing the truth.

 as I've  
 noted repeatedly before, that makes it difficult
 for her (or anyone) to dismiss my remarks, 
 opinions and criticisms.

No, it doesn't. Vaj's remarks, opinions, and
criticisms are usually simply wrong. And of course
we have only Vaj's word for it that he had excellent
results. Given his disonesty about so many other
things, what reason do we have to trust him on that
point?

 It's also part of the  
 reason I'm able to discriminate the bait and
 switch (though-free states vs. actual 
 transcendence) that goes down.

Vaj's comments on this issue have been off the 
wall, so wildly inaccurate it's difficult to
believe he ever practiced TM in the first place.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj 
vajradh...@... wrote:
 
 On Dec 30, 2008, at 10:48 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
[I wrote:]
   See my previous post. I meant to say 
   something different. You did say you were 
   going to start ignoring my posts again, 
   though, so this does make you a liar.

Notice that Vaj has carefully snipped Ruth's
question that I was responding to. Here it is:

  I wasn't going to talk to you about religion
  and you weren't going to talk to me about 
  religion. Does this make us both liars?

I assumed, mistakenly, that this was a jocular
question and responded in that spirit. Then
Ruth turned the tables and claimed it was a
serious question meant to test whether I would say
she was a liar because she had changed her mind.

I strongly suspect Ruth *did* originally intend the
question to be jocular--Ha ha, look at us, still
discussing religion after we swore we weren't going
to--and then saw that she could turn my response
into an attack. She says herself it was an off-the-
cuff question:

  Interesting. I was hoping you would answer this 
  off the cuff question.  It actually does not 
  make me a liar because I meant it  when I said 
  it.  I just changed my mind for the evening.

Of course it doesn't make her a liar.

.  This helps me know why you misuse the word liar 
 so often.  Judy: It isn't a lie when you change 
 your mind.

Of course it isn't, nor do I accuse people of being
liars because they've changed their minds. Ruth
knows this. She was just desperate for something
to bash me with.

Ruth doesn't like to fight, most likely because 
when she allows herself to participate in one, she 
does it very, very badly. She's never learned how
to fight *honorably*.

Now Vaj chimes in:

 When someone is repeatedly calling people liars 
 who clearly are not

Such as who, for example? Name one.

 it's often a cover for their own dishonesty and 
 lying. I believe the saying is 'when you point a 
 finger at someone else, there's tree fingers 
 pointing back at you.' I think that applies quite 
 well here.

Vaj knows I don't lie, so his comment above is
itself a lie.

His willingness to go along with Ruth's trick
question to me and claim, as she did, that it
demonstrates that I call people liars who clearly
are not, is another example of his dishonesty.
Ruth's question itself was dishonest--or at least
her subsequent use of my response was--and Vaj is
smart enough to figure that out.

Vaj hates me because I call him on his dishonesty.
He's never been able to catch me in a lie because
I don't lie. Yet claiming I'm a liar is the only 
weapon he can come up with to use against me. Sad.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity 

no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig 

LEnglish5@ wrote:
snip
  Only if MMY is wrong about Vedic Science in the 
  first place, of course
 
 He is.  Vedic Science is a non sequitur.

I think she means oxomoron. No wonder she said I 
don't use the term non sequitur properly!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

Well, Ruth (if you're still reading my posts), this 
time *I* lied: I had thought I was going to be busy 
all day finishing up an editing gig so I could leave 
tomorrow morning, and I was through much sooner than 
I expected. So I spent the afternoon responding 
offline to the last few days of posts and am now 
uploading them one after another.

After this batch, though, I won't be here again till
Sunday at the earliest and won't be posting all that
much until I get back on Thursday.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity 

no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig 

LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 

ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 

authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 

ruthsimplicity no_reply@
  [...]
 But of course I have a but.  Clarity of
 TM?  Really? I don't buy that anymore.
   
I didn't say clarity of TM. I said
religion requires the clarity TM provides to 
live up to its potential.
   
   Wow!  Talk about argumentative.   Fuck!  I 
   added the word of! I have never met a person 
   more pedantic than you.
  
  Actually, clarity of TM didn't even make sense 
  to me in that context.
  
  Clarity FROM TM makes sense.
  
  Words matter.
  
  Lawson
 
 People, it was a typo.

It wasn't a typo. You didn't know what the hell I
was talking about. And you didn't just add a word, 

you came up with a phrase that made no sense in the
context of what I'd said.

  Duh.  I don't bother to proof.  I speak off
 the cuff.  Cripe, some guys like to parse instead 
 of have an easy going conversation.

IOW, you feel words don't matter. We disagree, Lawson
and I.

 I wouldn't be ragging on you Lawson if it weren't 
 for the fact that these kinds of issues are not 
 addressed with grace.  Someone could have asked 
 what I meant if they were confused.  Instead I get 
 schoolmarms wagging their fingers.

If you were confused about what I said, you could 
have asked what *I* meant. Instead, you challenged
me on a point I made--I don't buy that anymore, you 

said--but used words that made no sense in that 
context. How am I supposed to respond to such a 
challenge? I repeated the significant phrase so you 
could rephrase what you said.

Clarity of TM might make sense in the context of
TM practice, but I was talking about the clarity that 

the practice of TM brings to one's understanding and 

experience of religion, *outside* meditation.

 People just seem to want to score points.  I want 
 to find out why people meditate, why people quit, 
 how people think and why the TMO seems to eat some 
 people alive.

But you can't do that if you're not expressing
yourself clearly, or if you don't grasp what the
other person is talking about. That's why words 
*are* important.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  The
   experience of transcending restores the
   original intention of religion, which is to 
   give a direct experience of transcending by
   whatever means necessary: prayer, rosary, 
   chanting, dancing, singing or climbing a 
   mountain on your knees, whatever floats your 
   boat. 
  
  I think the point is that this claim about 
  restoring what was the original intention of 
  religion is an expression of Maharishi's
  grandiosity that he would know such a thing.  It 
  is coming from a Hindu perspective on what 
  religion is all about.
 
 Curtis, MMY is hardly the first to suggest that
 transcendence was the original basis for religion. 

I inherited the Perennial Philosophy from my Grandfather so I
understand what you are saying.  What made Maharishi's claim grandiose
was that he had restored the unique way to transcend. Huxley was
making a much more inclusive point.

 
 It's almost a cliche, and was--in the West as 
 well as the East--long before MMY came on the scene.
 That doesn't make it *true*, of course, in and of
 itself, but it's important to know that many people
 have come to the same conclusion (not with reference
 to TM(TM) specifically, of course).

It was Maharishi's fixation on TM that I was criticizing.

 
  It has nothing to do with most versions of 
  Christianity.  It might apply to certain groups 
  of mystical Christianity which might value such 
  experiences.  But even then it would not be 
  outside the acceptance of Christ as a redeemer 
  and his role in opening the possibility for 
  eternal life as their original intention of 
  religion
 
 You can't tell exactly what Christianity was 
 originally about from the Bible or the way it's come 
 to be taught over the centuries. What might early 
 Christians have been doing in the catacombs? Have 
 you ever read any of Paul's descriptions of his own 
 experiences? Do you know anything about Gnostic
 Christianity? The Essenes?

A bit. But my point is about Christians today and their relationship
with the OKay Dokey presentation of TM as no problem, or conflict
with religion.

 
 In traditional Christianity, all we have *left* of 
 what Jesus himself taught is the exoteric teachings, 
 and we're not even sure of those.

Well that is your take.  Fundamentalists are fine with their own
version which they believe is complete. 
 
 We do now have the Nag Hammadi and other Gnostic 
 texts, which are profoundly mystical.

And the Desert Fathers and plenty of other writers.  That was one of
Basil Pennington's main missions. to translate these obscure texts.

 
 Once Christianity became established, all the
 mystical stuff was cut out. Esoteric practice and
 experience couldn't be controlled so easily by a 
 hierarchy. The Church wanted salvation to be 
 available only through its own anointed staff, on 
 its terms. It didn't want people going off and 
 having their own exalted experiences via techniques 
 they could perform by themselves.

Presuming that these are valid important experiences and not a side
track of superstitious humans in altered states.

 
 If Jesus had taught a technique for transcending, it
 was in the Church's interests to help it get lost, if
 that didn't happen on its own.

I think there is a pretty long tradition of people who are into these
states of mind in Christianity.  The monastic traditions certainly
held on to it.

 
 What MMY was saying, as I understand him, is that
 all religions--at least the old established
 religions--were originally mystical (or gnostic)
 in their nature and practice. In most cases, of
 course, we don't have much in the way of
 historical records of their earliest days, so it's
 not something you could likely ever prove. But the
 evidence that's available certainly isn't
 inconsistent with that thesis.

But he also misses the main point of Christian Theology in his
Hindu-centricness.  He misses the relationship of Christians with
Christ.  He does more than miss it, he dismisses it. (So do I)  But
there are bigger conflicts than he lead on for Christian believers,
even ones who had a deep understanding of the mystical experiences in
Christian history, the monks who did TM.

 
 And most religions *do* have an esoteric version: 
 Kabbalah in Judaism, Sufism in Islam, mystical 
 Christianity. Eastern religions too: Hinduism,
 Buddhism, and Taoism all have an esoteric aspect
 for the contemplative and a popular aspect for
 the householder. There's always been that parallel
 theme, but it's had to stay more or less 
 underground (at least in the West) to avoid
 conflict with the powers that be.

I don't assume there is a unifying principle between these different
traditions of mysticism.  I think there are a lot of mental options.  

 
  . Even the reclusive Christian monks I hung out 
  with did not buy into Maharishi's 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   The
experience of transcending restores the
original intention of religion, which is to 
give a direct experience of transcending by
whatever means necessary: prayer, rosary, 
chanting, dancing, singing or climbing a 
mountain on your knees, whatever floats your 
boat. 
   
   I think the point is that this claim about 
   restoring what was the original intention of 
   religion is an expression of Maharishi's
   grandiosity that he would know such a thing.  It 
   is coming from a Hindu perspective on what 
   religion is all about.
  
  Curtis, MMY is hardly the first to suggest that
  transcendence was the original basis for religion. 
 
 I inherited the Perennial Philosophy from my Grandfather so I
 understand what you are saying.  What made Maharishi's claim 
grandiose
 was that he had restored the unique way to transcend. Huxley was
 making a much more inclusive point.
 
  
  It's almost a cliche, and was--in the West as 
  well as the East--long before MMY came on the scene.
  That doesn't make it *true*, of course, in and of
  itself, but it's important to know that many people
  have come to the same conclusion (not with reference
  to TM(TM) specifically, of course).
 
 It was Maharishi's fixation on TM that I was criticizing.
 
  
   It has nothing to do with most versions of 
   Christianity.  It might apply to certain groups 
   of mystical Christianity which might value such 
   experiences.  But even then it would not be 
   outside the acceptance of Christ as a redeemer 
   and his role in opening the possibility for 
   eternal life as their original intention of 
   religion
  
  You can't tell exactly what Christianity was 
  originally about from the Bible or the way it's come 
  to be taught over the centuries. What might early 
  Christians have been doing in the catacombs? Have 
  you ever read any of Paul's descriptions of his own 
  experiences? Do you know anything about Gnostic
  Christianity? The Essenes?
 
 A bit. But my point is about Christians today and
 their relationship with the OKay Dokey presentation
 of TM as no problem, or conflict with religion.

Yeah, that's superficial. But if you can get 'em
meditating, they may begin to get at that deeper
level where the dogmatic conflicts (which TM does
gloss over) dissolve.

  In traditional Christianity, all we have *left* of 
  what Jesus himself taught is the exoteric teachings, 
  and we're not even sure of those.
 
 Well that is your take.  Fundamentalists are fine with
 their own version which they believe is complete.

Yeah, but there's a pretty solid scholarly consensus
on this point.

snip
  Once Christianity became established, all the
  mystical stuff was cut out. Esoteric practice and
  experience couldn't be controlled so easily by a 
  hierarchy. The Church wanted salvation to be 
  available only through its own anointed staff, on 
  its terms. It didn't want people going off and 
  having their own exalted experiences via techniques 
  they could perform by themselves.
 
 Presuming that these are valid important experiences
 and not a side track of superstitious humans in altered
 states.

You think the Church in the first centuries after
Christ figured that out that it was a sidetrack, huh?
It would be delighted to know you buy that.

  If Jesus had taught a technique for transcending, it
  was in the Church's interests to help it get lost, if
  that didn't happen on its own.
 
 I think there is a pretty long tradition of people who
 are into these states of mind in Christianity.  The
 monastic traditions certainly held on to it.

Mystics are generally viewed with suspicion by the
established church. Their experiences have to be
interpreted strictly within the dogma or they get
into beeg trouble. And note that you pretty much
have to be a recluse to really indulge in it, mainly
because it's safer for the rest of us if we don't
come into contact with such people.

  What MMY was saying, as I understand him, is that
  all religions--at least the old established
  religions--were originally mystical (or gnostic)
  in their nature and practice. In most cases, of
  course, we don't have much in the way of
  historical records of their earliest days, so it's
  not something you could likely ever prove. But the
  evidence that's available certainly isn't
  inconsistent with that thesis.
 
 But he also misses the main point of Christian
 Theology in his Hindu-centricness.  He misses the
 relationship of Christians with Christ.  He does
 more than miss it, he dismisses it.

I'd have to hear what he said specifically. 

snip
   . Even the reclusive Christian monks I hung out 
   with did not buy into Maharishi's perspective 
   what the original 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity 
no_re...@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend 
jstein@ wrote:

[Ruth wrote:]
   Yup, TM brand meditation.  As I said above.
 
  Nope, effective, systematic regular transcending,
  as I said above.
 
 Nope, TM brand meditation, which is the only path 
 for regular transcending.  Nothing current 
 religions offer is adequate according to MMY.

As Lawson explained to you, it doesn't have to be TM-
*brand* meditation, just TM-*style* meditation, i.e.,
a meditation that results in regular, systematic,
effortless transcending.

snip
   You are repeating yourself.
 
  Yup, verbatim. That's what I tend to do when 
  people simply issue a flat contradiction without 
  advancing the discussion any.
 
 Patronizing again.  You and I disagree on what is
 the important point.

Then say, I don't agree instead of making a flat
contradiction. Flat contradictions are patronizing.

 Nothing to advance here.  Unless you think that any
 transcending is TM.

Since I've said several times now that people
transcend any number of different ways, your Unless
is disingenuous.

 For example, people transcend  through Buddhism.
 Others describe transcendental experiences through 
 prayer.  If that is the same as TM, that is 
 inconsistent with MMY's position that religions are 
 inadequate and other techniques are the slow road, 
 if a road at all.

Of course it isn't the same as TM. These are all
different routes to transcending, different 
methods of producing it. The issue is whether one 
route produces transcending more regularly 
(frequently) and easily than the others.

MMY believed TM did. Whether he's correct is a
different issue. But his *position* certainly 
wasn't inconsistent with the fact that people
transcend without doing TM.

  There are
 plenty of people who are religious,  but do not
 transcend.  I think that is fine as well.  I think 
 transcending is not as important as MMY made it out 
 to be.

He was hardly the only one to believe transcending is
important. It's a staple of the enlightenment
tradition.

Also, if you really look closely at the 
instructions for TM, it becomes self-evident 
how exceptionally delicate it is to teach.
  
   Oh, I don't think so.  I think you are fooling
   yourself.  I am sure I could teach TM.
 
  Of course you could, if you took TM teacher 
  training.
 
  You'd be very unlikely to teach it *successfully*
  without that training, though; and even with the
  training there would be people who didn't get it.
  It's not just the skill of the teacher or how 
  good the instruction itself is; it's the very 
  nature of the practice that makes it so elusive.

I would add that if you think the instruction isn't
delicate and don't realize why it *has* to be so
delicate, you haven't looked at the instruction
closely enough.

 I disagree.  I think most of the TTC is an exercise 
 in brain wash and is completely irrelevant to 
 teaching TM.

We disagree about its being brain wash. I've never 
taken TTC, so my opinion is second-hand, as is yours.
I do agree that learning the mechanics of instruction 
in the technique is a relatively small part of TTC, 
but TTC is the only place you can *get* that part.

 TM isn't elusive for those who
 score high on various personality traits such as 
 suggestibility.

Again, we disagree about suggestibility.

   Anyone good at putting someone in a suggestible
   state could teach TM.
 
  Naah, has nothing to do with suggestibility.
 
 And I say you are wrong.  Again, you make a 
 conclusory statement that adds nothing.

It's you who has a tendency to make such statements.
I'm showing you what it feels like to be on the other
end.

 Just by saying something isn't so, doesn't make 
 itnot so.

Something for you to remember.

 People who are familiar with hypnotism would know 
 that the initiation and checking procedures are 
 methods to put people in a suggestible state.

Yes, I'm aware of that. However, that hypnotists use
somewhat methods does not mean that's how they're
being used in TM instruction and checking. That's a
false equivalence.

 So what.  It isn't like that is a bad thing.  Why
 are Tm'ers so defensive about the effect of 
 checking and inititiation?

We aren't defensive about the effect of checking and
instruction. We do get annoyed when that effect is 
called suggestion, because it indicates inadequate
understanding of TM.

snip
  People transcend all kinds of different ways. I'm
  not judging their experience. I'm talking about
  the problem of teaching a systematic practice 
  that produces regular transcendence.
 
 And we disagree as to the extent of the  problem. 
  Ex teachers, Curtis, Turq, others,  how much of 
 the TTC was devoted to learning to teach?

Irrelevant (although Patrick, for one, disagrees with
you).

 How hard is it to teach?

Not that hard, but it depends on what you mean by
teach. Just going through the procedure is easy;
the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig 
lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig 
LEnglish5@ wrote:
snip
   What I find fascinating is that Vaj DOES assert 
   these things, but you deny it.
  
  I don't follow.  I am just referring only to the 
  post that Judy called dishonest.  What was 
  dishonest in the post?
 
 The tone, m'dear, the tone...

Not just the tone; the *content* was dishonest all 
the way through. And I wasn't referring to just that 
one post in any case, I was referring to Vaj's entire
TM-related output here.

(On the other hand, I didn't follow what you said to
Ruth either about Vaj asserting things and Ruth
denying that he asserted them. What things 
specifically? And what does that have to do with
tone?)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 The dogma gets in my way on a number of points, but
 I sure appreciate Christianity a whole lot more than
 I did pre-TM. I've lived most of my life without a
 religious practice, except for brief attempts to get
 into it to see what it was like, so I don't really
 feel a lack in that department. But it wouldn't
 surprise me a bit if I began to be drawn to it, and
 I'd welcome it. I could really dig a Christian 
 congregation led by a minister who practiced TM and
 preached the Gospel according to SCI.

Tom Miller, a long time TM teacher, was my first SCI teacher in 1972
in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. He became a priest for the Liberal
Catholic Church and established St. Gabriel and All Angels in
Fairfield about 20 years ago http://tinyurl.com/7ukvrt I go through
phases of attending regularly and enjoy the long liturgy, and short
sermon in the light of SCI. The congregation, mostly TM'ers, is small
but packed on Christmas Eve and Easter. Even those who profess no
religion, end up asking Tom to marry and bury loved ones. In times of
need, who do you call? The Big Guy in the Sky. Church feels like
family and I'm grateful for Tom's commitment to serving our community. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Patrick Gillam]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote:
 
  Patrick Gillam wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
   Ex teachers, Curtis, Turq, others,  
   how much of the TTC was devoted to 
   learning to teach?  How hard is it 
   to teach?  It seems routine and easy 
   to me.
   
  
   I spent every bit of my teacher training 
   courses learning how to teach. We had to 
   memorize most everything, which was hard 
   for me.
  
   My TM teacher training took place in 
   three phases:
  
   Phase 1 was where we learned to give 
   introductory lectures and conduct the 
   checking procedure.
  
   Phase 2 was a practicum in the field, 
   where we presented intro lectures, checked 
   people and administered programs such as 
   seasonal celebrations at the TM Center.
  
   Phase 3 was where we learned how to conduct 
   the six steps of teaching that follow the 
   intro lecture: the prep lecture, the personal 
   interview, the puja and instruction, and the 
   three nights of follow-up meetings.
  
   Phase 3 took three months, with zero days off.
  
   My courses were structured in a no-man-left-
   behind fashion. Once I passed my tests and 
   demonstrated my mastery of the material at 
   hand, I became a tester for others and helped 
   them pass their tests. Hence, I was always busy.
   We were all busy.
  
   We didn't have a lot of time in the day, 
   either, because we were rounding much of the time.
  
   TM teacher training for me was a cross between 
   military service and graduate school. Very intense. 
   I grew a lot.
 
  I thought that trying to pass memorization 
  tests while way up in rounds 
  was insane.  It seemed to amplify any 
  nervousness one might have whereas 
  testing down in rounds would have been 
  much easier.  It was sort of like 
  trying to walk a tight rope while drunk.

Maybe so, but everyone managed to pass 
his tests, thanks in part to the structure 
described above, whereby people who mastered 
the material then focused on helping their 
course mates master it in turn.

 Sounds like its own form of testing/training under induced stress.
 
 Lawson

The unstressing did lead to behavior that 
was perhaps less graceful than desired. One 
day at lunch during my TTC Phase 3, a few 
of us were remarking on the clumsiness we 
were exhibiting, bumping into people and 
spilling our food. A man in my study group 
said he had simply resolved to stop behaving 
that way, and the resolution worked - no more 
clumsiness. I took my cue from Jeff (his name), 
and learned a valuable lesson: I could simply 
decide to behave in a certain way, and that 
resolution could carry forward into my behavior. 
No surprise, I suppose, if it's true that 
consciousness is the foundation of life, and 
intention gives direction to consciousness.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Patrick Gillam]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote:

 On Dec 31, 2008, at 2:35 PM, Patrick Gillam wrote:

  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
  Ex teachers, Curtis, Turq, others,
  how much of the TTC was devoted to
  learning to teach?  How hard is it
  to teach?  It seems routine and easy
  to me.
 
  I spent every bit of my teacher training
  courses learning how to teach. We had to
  memorize most everything, which was hard
  for me.
[snip]
  We didn't have a lot of time in the day,
  either, because we were rounding much of the time.
 
 And Patrick, everything you just described, if you took
 out most of the rounding as well as the brainwashing,
 could have been accomplished in about 2 weeks.  Nothing
 like wasting huge amounts of time, while convincing gullible
 recruits it's good for them.
 
 Sal

The rounding was the reason I attended 
teacher training, so I would have been 
loath to skip that. And the brainwashing, 
by which I assume you mean the time spent 
watching videotapes of Maharishi, was 
necessary to learn how to represent 
Maharishi, which is what TM teacher 
training is all about.

It's funny -  you use the term brainwashing, 
Sal, in its pejorative sense, but it's the 
reason I pursued TM teacher training - to 
have my nervous system cleansed.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam 
jpgil...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote:
 
  On Dec 31, 2008, at 2:35 PM, Patrick Gillam wrote:
 
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote:
  
   Ex teachers, Curtis, Turq, others,
   how much of the TTC was devoted to
   learning to teach?  How hard is it
   to teach?  It seems routine and easy
   to me.
  
   I spent every bit of my teacher training
   courses learning how to teach. We had to
   memorize most everything, which was hard
   for me.
 [snip]
   We didn't have a lot of time in the day,
   either, because we were rounding much of the time.
  
  And Patrick, everything you just described, if you took
  out most of the rounding as well as the brainwashing,
  could have been accomplished in about 2 weeks.  Nothing
  like wasting huge amounts of time, while convincing gullible
  recruits it's good for them.
  
  Sal
 
 The rounding was the reason I attended 
 teacher training, so I would have been 
 loath to skip that. And the brainwashing, 
 by which I assume you mean the time spent 
 watching videotapes of Maharishi, was 
 necessary to learn how to represent 
 Maharishi, which is what TM teacher 
 training is all about.
 
 It's funny -  you use the term brainwashing, 
 Sal, in its pejorative sense, but it's the 
 reason I pursued TM teacher training - to 
 have my nervous system cleansed.

yeah Patrick, you come across as sooo brainwashed...sal is just 
cynical to the point of being self destructive.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[metoostill]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 As to whether TM produces regular transcendence, it depends on the person and 
 how, 
as you say, you define transcendence.  I have asked people about their 
experiences.  Some 
say they never transcend.  Many who quit early probably had no rewarding 
experiences.  
Others say they got  into a trancey kind of zone.  Others say that they found 
it relaxing 
and day dreamy.  Others say they transcend making the experience sound 
important.  
But there is no real test for transcendence.  So we don't know if TM produces 
regular 
transcendence.   And we don't know if transcendence is important or just an 
artifact of our 
mind.

I hope I have sniped the above quote in a way that correctly identifies it.

This subject of what we experience when we practice TM, and what transcending 
means, is 
one I have thought about too.  What we experience when we do TM is what we 
experience 
when we do TM.  A circular statement but there it is.  Some quietness, some 
silence, some 
mantra, some thoughts.  Sometimes some sleep.  Sometimes no mantra, no 
thoughts, 
more quietness, more silence, in varying degrees, and with varying degrees of 
awe and 
reverence.  It is what it is.  We can (and as taught, do) label it 
transcending.  The 
experience is different, and or perceived from a different perspective, by 
different people.  
I don't mean to make any more or any less of the experience than what it is.

To transcend means to go beyond.  Let's change the subject for a moment from TM 
and 
transcending.  What is this?  Where did I come from?  Why am I here?  Each of 
us, TM 
students or not, experience this transient life on this earth and then leave 
it.  We bring 
nothing in, and we take nothing out.  Unless you count character, that might 
survive, but 
there I speculate.  Nothing visible is removed.

I have 35 years of TM under my belt.  I have experienced some quietness, some 
silence.  I 
don't know where I came from.  I don't know where I go when it's over.  I have 
read and 
heard some stories, or perhaps answers, to those questions.  In Sunday school 
as a little 
boy, in Maharishi's lectures and books.  Transcending is a word.  Words refer 
to things.  
The thing we experience, we experience.  The thing we don't experience, we 
don't 
experience.  We experience the TM experience.  I know of no one who has seen 
where we 
came from, or where we go to, who has seen outside this transient existence.  
There is a 
certain universal life experience with a limit that we share with the rest of 
humanity.  We 
as TM'ers do have a belief system, both in answer to those questions, and as a 
perspective 
on ourselves as a group in relation to those questions.  And then we have the 
TM 
experience, which we label transcending.  No one can argue with that.  So long 
as we 
understand it for what it is

Some of that may be cliched, I hope not too, but these experiences are 
ubiquitous, so it's 
hard to avoid cliche.

Happy New Year to all, and may we all transcend more next year, and in every 
conceivable 
way, than last.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, metoostill metoost...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
wrote:
 
  As to whether TM produces regular transcendence, it depends on 
the person and how, 
 as you say, you define transcendence.  I have asked people about 
their experiences.  Some 
 say they never transcend.  Many who quit early probably had no 
rewarding experiences.  
 Others say they got  into a trancey kind of zone.  Others say that 
they found it relaxing 
 and day dreamy.  Others say they transcend making the experience 
sound important.  
 But there is no real test for transcendence.  So we don't know if 
TM produces regular 
 transcendence.   And we don't know if transcendence is important or 
just an artifact of our 
 mind.
 
 I hope I have sniped the above quote in a way that correctly 
identifies it.
 
 This subject of what we experience when we practice TM, and what 
transcending means, is 
 one I have thought about too.  What we experience when we do TM is 
what we experience 
 when we do TM.  A circular statement but there it is.  Some 
quietness, some silence, some 
 mantra, some thoughts.  Sometimes some sleep.  Sometimes no mantra, 
no thoughts, 
 more quietness, more silence, in varying degrees, and with varying 
degrees of awe and 
 reverence.  It is what it is.  We can (and as taught, do) label it 
transcending.  The 
 experience is different, and or perceived from a different 
perspective, by different people.  
 I don't mean to make any more or any less of the experience than 
what it is.
 
 To transcend means to go beyond.  Let's change the subject for a 
moment from TM and 
 transcending.  What is this?  Where did I come from?  Why am I 
here?  Each of us, TM 
 students or not, experience this transient life on this earth and 
then leave it.  We bring 
 nothing in, and we take nothing out.  Unless you count character, 
that might survive, but 
 there I speculate.  Nothing visible is removed.
 
 I have 35 years of TM under my belt.  I have experienced some 
quietness, some silence.  I 
 don't know where I came from.  I don't know where I go when it's 
over.  I have read and 
 heard some stories, or perhaps answers, to those questions.  In 
Sunday school as a little 
 boy, in Maharishi's lectures and books.  Transcending is a word.  
Words refer to things.  
 The thing we experience, we experience.  The thing we don't 
experience, we don't 
 experience.  We experience the TM experience.  I know of no one who 
has seen where we 
 came from, or where we go to, who has seen outside this transient 
existence.  There is a 
 certain universal life experience with a limit that we share with 
the rest of humanity.  We 
 as TM'ers do have a belief system, both in answer to those 
questions, and as a perspective 
 on ourselves as a group in relation to those questions.  And then 
we have the TM 
 experience, which we label transcending.  No one can argue with 
that.  So long as we 
 understand it for what it is
 
 Some of that may be cliched, I hope not too, but these experiences 
are ubiquitous, so it's 
 hard to avoid cliche.
 
 Happy New Year to all, and may we all transcend more next year, and 
in every conceivable 
 way, than last.

Thank you ! 

Please understand that FFL is not for amateurs. Whatever is posted 
here about the TMO and Maharishi are 99% lies brought on by dubious 
fellows with a troublesome childhood and a few gals. Please remember 
this.
I don't know how you stumbled upon this page, but please be careful. 

And yes; Happy New Year to you ! :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, metoostill metoost...@... wrote:

 This subject of what we experience when we practice TM, and what
transcending 
 means, is one I have thought about too.  What we experience when we
do TM is what 
 we experience 
 when we do TM.  A circular statement but there it is.  Some
quietness, some silence, 
 some mantra,
 some thoughts.  Sometimes some sleep.  Sometimes no mantra, no
thoughts, 
 more quietness, more silence, in varying degrees, and with varying
degrees of awe and 
 reverence.  It is what it is.  We can (and as taught, do) label it
transcending.  The 
 experience is different, and or perceived from a different
perspective, by different
 people.  I don't mean
 to make any more or any less of the experience than what it is.

Metoostill, I agree. It is what it is...a simple natural, effortless
mental technique. Those who focus on the warts of the TMO and stop TM
because of it, would rather practice the Baby meet Bathwater
technique than TM. I have plenty to complain about the TMO but I don't
dwell on it or nurture a crabby attitude about the TMO as an excuse to
stop TM. Nothing will ever diminish the value of my TM experience.

Great post. Thanks

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, metoostill metoostill@ 
wrote:
 
  This subject of what we experience when we practice TM, and what
 transcending 
  means, is one I have thought about too.  What we experience when 
we
 do TM is what 
  we experience 
  when we do TM.  A circular statement but there it is.  Some
 quietness, some silence, 
  some mantra,
  some thoughts.  Sometimes some sleep.  Sometimes no mantra, no
 thoughts, 
  more quietness, more silence, in varying degrees, and with 
varying
 degrees of awe and 
  reverence.  It is what it is.  We can (and as taught, do) label 
it
 transcending.  The 
  experience is different, and or perceived from a different
 perspective, by different
  people.  I don't mean
  to make any more or any less of the experience than what it is.
 
 Metoostill, I agree. It is what it is...a simple natural, 
effortless
 mental technique. Those who focus on the warts of the TMO and stop 
TM
 because of it, would rather practice the Baby meet Bathwater
 technique than TM. I have plenty to complain about the TMO but I 
don't
 dwell on it or nurture a crabby attitude about the TMO as an 
excuse to
 stop TM. Nothing will ever diminish the value of my TM experience.
 
 Great post. Thanks

agreed. what i greatly enjoyed about the TM technique almost from 
the first day was the emphasis placed on my independence, and 
personal responsibility for any results. there will always be an 
organization associated with any significant invention, though what 
i really helped TM stick with me is that the Maharishi never set 
himself up as a personal guru- just generated all of the teaching i 
ever needed to understand the process and sequence of TM, and left 
it up to me to do the rest. the TMO has never insisted i give them 
as much a s a nickel above and beyond the modest fee i paid to learn 
TM, and i have been fine to keep it that way.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:
e.
 
 TM brand refers to a trademark, while TM style would refer
 to any meditation similar enough to TM to meet with MMY's
 approval. 
 
 Again, words matter.
 
 
Lawson


But there never has been any mediation similar enough to TM to make
MMY and the TMO happy and the TMOs have gone out of their way to
discourage ex-teachers from teaching on their own.  The only thing out
there is TM brand mediation.  The rest is pointless.  

I can be sloppy when I chat on the net.  I don't view it as any more
than a casual conversation.  But in this case I was being careful with
my words and I did specifically mean TM brand mediation. I emphasize
the brand to emphasize the exclusiveness.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
wrote:
   [...]
Judy, Vaj did not say one dishonest thing here. He asked if
you said
something, and if you had that position, you would be a TB.
You said
that you were stating MMY's position, which may or may not be your
position.   End of story.  

Okay, I've got to go back to reading via email so that I can skip
these disturbing exchanges.
   
   
   
   What I find fascinating is that Vaj DOES assert these things, but
  you deny it.
   
   
   Lawson
  
  I don't follow.  I am just referring only to the post that Judy called
  dishonest.  What was dishonest in the post?
 
 
 The tone, m'dear, the tone...
 
 
 
  Too many assumptions about what people think go on in this forum. To
call Vaj's tone dishonest requires too much mind reading for me.   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
 [...]
But of course I have a but.  Clarity of TM?  Really?
I don't buy that anymore.
  
   I didn't say clarity of TM. I said religion
   requires the clarity TM provides to live up to its
   potential.
  
  Wow!  Talk about argumentative.   Fuck!  I added the word of!  
I have
  never met a person more pedantic than you.
 
 Actually, clarity of TM didn't even make sense to me in that context.
 
 Clarity FROM TM makes sense.
 
 Words matter.
 
 
 Lawson

People, it was a typo.  Duh.  I don't bother to proof.  I speak off
the cuff.  Cripe, some guys like to parse instead of have an easy
going conversation.  

I wouldn't be ragging on you Lawson if it weren't for the fact that
these kinds of issues are not addressed with grace.  Someone could
have asked what I meant if they were confused.  Instead I get school
marms wagging their fingers.  

People just seem to want to score points.  I want to find out why
people meditate, why people quit, how people think and why the TMO
seems to eat some people alive.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   I'm with Billy on this one.  
  
  Thanks guys for explaining more than what I had from Science of Being
  Art of Living and from what Judy said about MMY's beliefs concerning
  religion. 
  
  Funny topic for me to get my panties into a wad about because I am not
  religious.  But, science seems to get treated with the same
  disrespect.  Believing Vedic Science underlies everything is a
  science killer.
 
 
 Only if MMY is wrong about Vedic Science in the first place, of
course
 
 
 
 Lawson


He is.  Vedic Science is a non sequitur.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Richard J. Williams]

Lawson wrote:
  TM brand refers to a trademark, while 
  style would refer to any meditation 
  lar enough to TM to meet with MMY's
  approval. 
  
Ruth wrote:
 But there never has been any mediation 
 similar enough to TM to make MMY and the 
 TMO happy and the TMOs have gone out of 
 their way to discourage ex-teachers from 
 teaching on their own.  The only thing out
 there is TM brand mediation.  The rest is 
 pointless.  

'TM brand' means you pay the fee and then 
you get taught by a TM Teacher in good
standing. But any meditation technique
that provides the opportunity for transcending
is in the TM style'.

Everyone meditates, Ruth - there's probably 
nobody on the planet who doesn't meditate. 

Meditation simply means to 'think things over', 
and almost everyone pauses at least once or 
twice a day to take stock of their own mental 
contents. And we are all transcending, everyday, 
even without a technique. 

Meditation is based on thinking and anyone 
who thinks, meditates. All you have to do is 
sit with your eyes closed and BE: be aware 
of being aware. It's that simple. 

According to Shunryu Suzuki, a famous Zen 
Master, all you have to do is sit - that's it: 
sitting IS enlightenment. 

Meditation is just what intelligent people do. 

Read more: 

'Centering' 
http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/centering.htm 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
willy...@... wrote:

 Lawson wrote:
   TM brand refers to a trademark, while 
   style would refer to any meditation 
   lar enough to TM to meet with MMY's
   approval. 
   
 Ruth wrote:
  But there never has been any mediation 
  similar enough to TM to make MMY and the 
  TMO happy and the TMOs have gone out of 
  their way to discourage ex-teachers from 
  teaching on their own.  The only thing out
  there is TM brand mediation.  The rest is 
  pointless.  
 
 'TM brand' means you pay the fee and then 
 you get taught by a TM Teacher in good
 standing. But any meditation technique
 that provides the opportunity for transcending
 is in the TM style'.
 
 Everyone meditates, Ruth - there's probably 
 nobody on the planet who doesn't meditate. 
 
 Meditation simply means to 'think things over', 
 and almost everyone pauses at least once or 
 twice a day to take stock of their own mental 
 contents. And we are all transcending, everyday, 
 even without a technique. 
 
 Meditation is based on thinking and anyone 
 who thinks, meditates. All you have to do is 
 sit with your eyes closed and BE: be aware 
 of being aware. It's that simple. 
 
 According to Shunryu Suzuki, a famous Zen 
 Master, all you have to do is sit - that's it: 
 sitting IS enlightenment. 
 
 Meditation is just what intelligent people do. 
 
 Read more: 
 
 'Centering' 
 http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/centering.htm

Yes.  I agree. That is why I have said I don't need TM to transcend. 
But this is not what MMY was talking about.  He was talking about TM.
 As in TM branded meditation. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Richard J. Williams]

  'TM brand' means you pay the fee and then 
  you get taught by a TM Teacher in good
  standing. But any meditation technique
  that provides the opportunity for 
  transcending is in the TM style'.
  
Ruth wrote:
 Yes. I agree. That is why I have said I don't 
 need TM to transcend. But this is not what 
 MMY was talking about.  He was talking about 
 TM. As in TM branded meditation.

According to the Marshy, any technique that 
provides the opportunity for transcending
could be termed 'TM'. But in reality, there's
no such thing as 'TM' - there are only 
alternating phases of rest and activity.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Vaj]

On Jan 1, 2009, at 8:46 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@  
wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:


I'm with Billy on this one.


Thanks guys for explaining more than what I had from Science of  
Being

Art of Living and from what Judy said about MMY's beliefs concerning
religion.

Funny topic for me to get my panties into a wad about because I am  
not

religious.  But, science seems to get treated with the same
disrespect.  Believing Vedic Science underlies everything is a
science killer.



Only if MMY is wrong about Vedic Science in the first place, of

course




Lawson



He is.  Vedic Science is a non sequitur.



The word science in Vedic Science is the Sanskrit word vidya.  
While some dictionaries do use the science as part of the definition,  
it does not refer to science in the modern sense, the systematic  
study ofthe structure and behavior of the physical and natural world  
through observation and experiment, instead it refers to a spiritual  
science.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:
 Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
 in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
 *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
 religion without TM is for first-graders. But
 religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
 it's undergirded by TM.
 
 TM without religion is better than religion without
 TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
 fulfillment of both.
 
 TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
 complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
 reveal its profundity.
 
 MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
 he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.

Well said.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Vaj]

On Dec 30, 2008, at 9:45 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:


Judy, Vaj did not say one dishonest thing here. He asked if you said
something, and if you had that position, you would be a TB. You said
that you were stating MMY's position, which may or may not be your
position.   End of story.



Yeah, typical Judy schlock. I figured she'd claim it was Maharishi's  
claim rather than hers since it gave her an easy, dishonest way out.  
Typical.


Since I had excellent results with TM (by TMO standards), as I've  
noted repeatedly before, that makes it difficult for her (or anyone)  
to dismiss my remarks, opinions and criticisms. It's also part of the  
reason I'm able to discriminate the bait and switch (though-free  
states vs. actual transcendence) that goes down.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Vaj]

On Dec 31, 2008, at 12:44 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


The

experience of transcending restores the original intention of
religion, which is to give a direct experience of transcending by
whatever means necessary: prayer, rosary, chanting, dancing, singing
or climbing a mountain on your knees, whatever floats your boat.


I think the point is that this claim about restoring what was the
original intention of religion is an expression of Maharishi's
grandiosity that he would know such a thing.  It is coming from a
Hindu perspective on what religion is all about.

It has nothing to do with most versions of Christianity.  It might
apply to certain groups of mystical Christianity which might value
such experiences.  But even then it would not be outside the
acceptance of Christ as a redeemer and his role in opening the
possibility for eternal life as their original intention of religion
. Even the reclusive Christian monks I hung out with did not buy into
Maharishi's perspective what the original intention of religion is,
or that he had somehow, out of all the other religions people,
discovered it.

Works for me.

I can see that and more power to ya.  But not all religious people
believe that Maharishi held such a lofty position of insight about
their religions. He was not a ecumenical kind of guy.  He was more of
a Triumphalist.



So tell us more about your interactions with these Christian monks  
(The Cistercians). There's an old Cistercian monastery in Montreal  
and the claim is that some of them had attained extended life-spans;  
same in France.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Vaj]

On Dec 30, 2008, at 10:48 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:


 See my previous post. I meant to say something
 different. You did say you were going to start
 ignoring my posts again, though, so this does
 make you a liar.

Interesting. I was hoping you would answer this off the cuff  
question.  It actually does not make me a liar because I meant it  
when I said it.  I just changed my mind for the evening..  This  
helps me know why you misuse the word liar so often.  Judy: It  
isn't a lie when you change your mind.



When someone is repeatedly calling people liars who clearly are  
not, it's often a cover for their own dishonesty and lying. I believe  
the saying is 'when you point a finger at someone else, there's tree  
fingers pointing back at you.' I think that applies quite well here.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 OK, I'm blowing my last post for the week on Ruth
 because she's condescended to speak to me--several
 times, in fact.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
 wrote:
 snip
 [quoting MMY:]
  This meditation is no threat to the authority of
  priests or ministers. It is something which belongs to
  their religions but which has been forgotten for many
  centuries.
 
  Not a lot of respect for religion here

 Not for religion that isn't supported by a
 practice of regular transcending. Obviously
 he isn't saying one should reject religion.
   
Obviously.  But not just transcending.  TM brand
transcending.
  
   Effective, systematic regular transcending. He
   considered TM to be the only such practice available,
   but he said if there were others, they'd also be
   called transcendental meditation. With regard to
   ancient times, he was obviously using TM in the
   generic sense.
 
  Yup, TM brand meditation.  As I said above.

 Nope, effective, systematic regular transcending,
 as I said above.

Nope, TM brand meditation, which is the only path for regular
transcending.  Nothing current religions offer is adequate according to
MMY.

  I do think that it is bullshit that TM belonged
  to the religions but was forgotten for centuries.

 The important point is that religions developed
 from experiences of transcendence; they're the
 external manifestations of internal experience.
 The external manifestation doesn't do you nearly
 as much good by itself as when you have the inner
 experience of which it's the manifestation.
   
The important point is that he is saying religions
have it wrong and must incorporate TM brand meditation
to have it right.
  
   No, the important point is that religions developed
   from experiences of transcendence; they're the
   external manifestations of internal experience. The
   external manifestation doesn't do you nearly as much
   good by itself as when you have the inner experience
   of which it's the manifestation.
 
  You are repeating yourself.

 Yup, verbatim. That's what I tend to do when people
 simply issue a flat contradiction without advancing
 the discussion any.

Patronizing again.  You and I disagree on what is the important point. 
Nothing to advance here.  Unless you think that any transcending is TM.
For example, people transcend  through Buddhism.   Others describe
transcendental experiences through prayer.  If that is the same as TM ,
that is inconsistent with MMY's position that religions are inadequate
and other techniques are the slow road, if a road at all.  There are
plenty of people who are religious,  but do not transcend.  I think that
is fine as well.  I think transcending is not as important as MMY made
it out to be.

   The important point is that whatever path
  the religion prescribes as the way to god is not
  good enough, you have to have TM.

 You have to have regular transcendence, because
 religions (as I said) developed from the experience
 of transcendence. Without the transcendence,
 they're just the shell.

   Who suddenly remembered and why should
  we take their word for it?  If TM was so great,
  why was it forgotten?

 Too easy to get the practice of regular
 transcending wrong.
   
Really?  How do you know that?
  
   Lots of residence courses listening to people
   describe what they're doing when they think they're
   doing TM, among other things. Also, if you really
   look closely at the instructions for TM, it becomes
   self-evident how exceptionally delicate it is to
   teach.
 
  Oh, I don't think so.  I think you are fooling
  yourself.  I am sure I could teach TM.

 Of course you could, if you took TM teacher training.

 You'd be very unlikely to teach it *successfully*
 without that training, though; and even with the
 training there would be people who didn't get it.
 It's not just the skill of the teacher or how good
 the instruction itself is; it's the very nature of
 the practice that makes it so elusive.

I disagree.  I think most of the TTC is an exercise in brain wash and is
completely irrelevant to teaching TM.  TM isn't elusive for those who
score high on various personality traits such as suggestibility.

  Anyone good at putting someone in a suggestible
  state could teach TM.

 Naah, has nothing to do with suggestibility.

And I say you are wrong.  Again, you make a conclusory statement that
adds nothing.  Just by saying something isn't so, doesn't make itnot 
so.  People who are familiar with hypnotism would know that the
initiation and checking procedures are methods to put people in a
suggestible state.  So what.  It isn't like 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Patrick Gillam]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote:

 Ex teachers, Curtis, Turq, others,  
 how much of the TTC was devoted to 
 learning to teach?  How hard is it 
 to teach?  It seems routine and easy 
 to me.

I spent every bit of my teacher training 
courses learning how to teach. We had to 
memorize most everything, which was hard 
for me.

My TM teacher training took place in 
three phases:

Phase 1 was where we learned to give 
introductory lectures and conduct the 
checking procedure.

Phase 2 was a practicum in the field, 
where we presented intro lectures, checked 
people and administered programs such as 
seasonal celebrations at the TM Center.

Phase 3 was where we learned how to conduct 
the six steps of teaching that follow the 
intro lecture: the prep lecture, the personal 
interview, the puja and instruction, and the 
three nights of follow-up meetings.

Phase 3 took three months, with zero days off.

My courses were structured in a no-man-left-
behind fashion. Once I passed my tests and 
demonstrated my mastery of the material at 
hand, I became a tester for others and helped 
them pass their tests. Hence, I was always busy.
We were all busy.

We didn't have a lot of time in the day, 
either, because we were rounding much of the time.

TM teacher training for me was a cross between 
military service and graduate school. Very intense. 
I grew a lot.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Bhairitu]

Patrick Gillam wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote:
   
 Ex teachers, Curtis, Turq, others,  
 how much of the TTC was devoted to 
 learning to teach?  How hard is it 
 to teach?  It seems routine and easy 
 to me.
 

 I spent every bit of my teacher training 
 courses learning how to teach. We had to 
 memorize most everything, which was hard 
 for me.

 My TM teacher training took place in 
 three phases:

 Phase 1 was where we learned to give 
 introductory lectures and conduct the 
 checking procedure.

 Phase 2 was a practicum in the field, 
 where we presented intro lectures, checked 
 people and administered programs such as 
 seasonal celebrations at the TM Center.

 Phase 3 was where we learned how to conduct 
 the six steps of teaching that follow the 
 intro lecture: the prep lecture, the personal 
 interview, the puja and instruction, and the 
 three nights of follow-up meetings.

 Phase 3 took three months, with zero days off.

 My courses were structured in a no-man-left-
 behind fashion. Once I passed my tests and 
 demonstrated my mastery of the material at 
 hand, I became a tester for others and helped 
 them pass their tests. Hence, I was always busy.
 We were all busy.

 We didn't have a lot of time in the day, 
 either, because we were rounding much of the time.

 TM teacher training for me was a cross between 
 military service and graduate school. Very intense. 
 I grew a lot.
   
I thought that trying to pass memorization tests while way up in rounds 
was insane.  It seemed to amplify any nervousness one might have whereas 
testing down in rounds would have been much easier.  It was sort of like 
trying to walk a tight rope while drunk.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Sal Sunshine]

On Dec 31, 2008, at 2:35 PM, Patrick Gillam wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote:


Ex teachers, Curtis, Turq, others,
how much of the TTC was devoted to
learning to teach?  How hard is it
to teach?  It seems routine and easy
to me.


I spent every bit of my teacher training
courses learning how to teach. We had to
memorize most everything, which was hard
for me.

My TM teacher training took place in
three phases:

Phase 1 was where we learned to give
introductory lectures and conduct the
checking procedure.

Phase 2 was a practicum in the field,
where we presented intro lectures, checked
people and administered programs such as
seasonal celebrations at the TM Center.

Phase 3 was where we learned how to conduct
the six steps of teaching that follow the
intro lecture: the prep lecture, the personal
interview, the puja and instruction, and the
three nights of follow-up meetings.

Phase 3 took three months, with zero days off.

My courses were structured in a no-man-left-
behind fashion. Once I passed my tests and
demonstrated my mastery of the material at
hand, I became a tester for others and helped
them pass their tests. Hence, I was always busy.
We were all busy.

We didn't have a lot of time in the day,
either, because we were rounding much of the time.

TM teacher training for me was a cross between
military service and graduate school. Very intense.
I grew a lot.


And Patrick, everything you just described, if you took
out most of the rounding as well as the brainwashing,
could have been accomplished in about 2 weeks.  Nothing
like wasting huge amounts of time, while convincing gullible
recruits it's good for them.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:

 
 It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of MMY. Even if they think he's a
 fraud, TM still works in that it can deliver the ability to transcend
 effortlessly. Practice or believe anything you want and call it your
 religion. Hell, worship Beelzebub and do TM, it doesn't matter, it
works.


Works to do what?  For whom?  The TM party line is that it works for
everyone.  I say that is not the case.  I say most people quit because
of no positive effects.  A few people quit because of negative effects. 

What is the importance of transcendence?  You can't know that it isn't
an artifact of the mind.  Through electrical stimulation the
experience can be recreated in some.  

So you like it, that is fine.  But it doesn't mean that it is for
everyone and doesn't mean that it has some cosmic significance.  Maybe
it does.  But maybe Buddhist meditation has cosmic significance. 
Maybe prayer does.  Maybe doing an act of kindness does.  Maybe
raising your children right does. I want to see results in the
relative world because that is where we are.   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ 
wrote:
 
  
  It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of MMY. Even if they think 
he's a
  fraud, TM still works in that it can deliver the ability to 
transcend
  effortlessly. Practice or believe anything you want and call it 
your
  religion. Hell, worship Beelzebub and do TM, it doesn't matter, 
it
 works.
 
 
 Works to do what?  For whom?  The TM party line is that it works 
for
 everyone.  I say that is not the case.  I say most people quit 
because
 of no positive effects.  A few people quit because of negative 
effects. 
 
 What is the importance of transcendence?  You can't know that it 
isn't
 an artifact of the mind.  Through electrical stimulation the
 experience can be recreated in some.  
 
 So you like it, that is fine.  But it doesn't mean that it is for
 everyone and doesn't mean that it has some cosmic significance.  
Maybe
 it does.  But maybe Buddhist meditation has cosmic significance. 
 Maybe prayer does.  Maybe doing an act of kindness does.  Maybe
 raising your children right does. I want to see results in the
 relative world because that is where we are.

maybe, maybe, maybe. maybe a horse will get you to work faster than 
a car. maybe when it is light out we call it night. c'mon. if you 
want to see results, do the damned technique, and don't get sucked 
into the endless BSing of a couple of critics that don't have ten 
years of TM practice between them.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
[...]
   But of course I have a but.  Clarity of TM?  Really?
   I don't buy that anymore.
 
  I didn't say clarity of TM. I said religion
  requires the clarity TM provides to live up to its
  potential.
 
 Wow!  Talk about argumentative.   Fuck!  I added the word of!   I have
 never met a person more pedantic than you.

Actually, clarity of TM didn't even make sense to me in that context.

Clarity FROM TM makes sense.

Words matter.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:
[...]
 Judy, Vaj did not say one dishonest thing here. He asked if you said
 something, and if you had that position, you would be a TB. You said
 that you were stating MMY's position, which may or may not be your
 position.   End of story.  
 
 Okay, I've got to go back to reading via email so that I can skip
 these disturbing exchanges.



What I find fascinating is that Vaj DOES assert these things, but you deny it.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  I'm with Billy on this one.  
 
 Thanks guys for explaining more than what I had from Science of Being
 Art of Living and from what Judy said about MMY's beliefs concerning
 religion. 
 
 Funny topic for me to get my panties into a wad about because I am not
 religious.  But, science seems to get treated with the same
 disrespect.  Believing Vedic Science underlies everything is a
 science killer.


Only if MMY is wrong about Vedic Science in the first place, of course



Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
wrote:
snip
[quoting MMY:]
 This meditation is no threat to the authority of
 priests or ministers. It is something which belongs to
 their religions but which has been forgotten for many
 centuries.

 Not a lot of respect for religion here
   
Not for religion that isn't supported by a
practice of regular transcending. Obviously
he isn't saying one should reject religion.
  
   Obviously.  But not just transcending.  TM brand
   transcending.
 
  Effective, systematic regular transcending. He
  considered TM to be the only such practice available,
  but he said if there were others, they'd also be
  called transcendental meditation. With regard to
  ancient times, he was obviously using TM in the
  generic sense.
 
 Yup, TM brand meditation.  As I said above.

TM brand refers to a trademark, while TM style would refer
to any meditation similar enough to TM to meet with MMY's
approval. 

Again, words matter.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... 
wrote:

 The
  experience of transcending restores the original intention of
  religion, which is to give a direct experience of transcending by
  whatever means necessary: prayer, rosary, chanting, dancing, singing
  or climbing a mountain on your knees, whatever floats your boat. 
 
 I think the point is that this claim about restoring what was the
 original intention of religion is an expression of Maharishi's
 grandiosity that he would know such a thing.  It is coming from a
 Hindu perspective on what religion is all about.
 
 It has nothing to do with most versions of Christianity.  It might
 apply to certain groups of mystical Christianity which might value
 such experiences.  But even then it would not be outside the
 acceptance of Christ as a redeemer and his role in opening the
 possibility for eternal life as their original intention of religion
 . Even the reclusive Christian monks I hung out with did not buy into
 Maharishi's perspective what the original intention of religion is,
 or that he had somehow, out of all the other religions people,
 discovered it.


Well, long before I heard about TM, i was embaressing the hell out of
my Sunday school teacher (in a Uni-Uni church no less) by asking 
how do we know Jesus' powers were divine instead of some kind
of pyschic thing? I was about 8 or 10 at the time, I guess.


So, the concept that maybe modern Christianity has it wrong
isn't exactly new to MMY.

And, while I disagree with the claim that all spiritual practices
are due to xyz physioligcal state, MMY's assertion that they are 
due to TC ala TM is no more absolutist than the assertion that they
are due to reducing the activity of one frontal lobe of the brain.



 
 Works for me.
 
 I can see that and more power to ya.  But not all religious people
 believe that Maharishi held such a lofty position of insight about
 their religions. He was not a ecumenical kind of guy.  He was more of
 a Triumphalist.  
 

He's no more lofty (or less) than the scientists that believe that THEY 
have found the real secret of spirituality. My own belief is that you can 
describe many physiological states of the brain the same way, but they
aren't the same physiological state, even so.


Whether this makes some kind of real world difference is an interesting
question...


IF it DOES, then the question of which religion is better? has measurable
 answer(s), though, of course, you can change the criteria
for better as you like.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:
[...]
 Patronizing again.  You and I disagree on what is the important point. 
 Nothing to advance here.  Unless you think that any transcending is TM.
 For example, people transcend  through Buddhism.   Others describe
 transcendental experiences through prayer.  If that is the same as TM ,
 that is inconsistent with MMY's position that religions are inadequate
 and other techniques are the slow road, if a road at all.  There are
 plenty of people who are religious,  but do not transcend.  I think that
 is fine as well.  I think transcending is not as important as MMY made
 it out to be.

Many different things can be described the same way. THat doesn't
mean they are the same thing.

Specifically, TC ala TM is correlated with frontal lobe coherence, while
spiritual experiences of selflessness are correlated with
reduced activity of one side of the frontal lobe. Hardly the same, though
obviously related in some way.

So the question really seems to be:

is TM-style transcendence significantly different in effect than 
non-TM-style transcendence, and the answer obviously seems to be
yes, at least as measured by EEG.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote:

 Patrick Gillam wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote:

  Ex teachers, Curtis, Turq, others,  
  how much of the TTC was devoted to 
  learning to teach?  How hard is it 
  to teach?  It seems routine and easy 
  to me.
  
 
  I spent every bit of my teacher training 
  courses learning how to teach. We had to 
  memorize most everything, which was hard 
  for me.
 
  My TM teacher training took place in 
  three phases:
 
  Phase 1 was where we learned to give 
  introductory lectures and conduct the 
  checking procedure.
 
  Phase 2 was a practicum in the field, 
  where we presented intro lectures, checked 
  people and administered programs such as 
  seasonal celebrations at the TM Center.
 
  Phase 3 was where we learned how to conduct 
  the six steps of teaching that follow the 
  intro lecture: the prep lecture, the personal 
  interview, the puja and instruction, and the 
  three nights of follow-up meetings.
 
  Phase 3 took three months, with zero days off.
 
  My courses were structured in a no-man-left-
  behind fashion. Once I passed my tests and 
  demonstrated my mastery of the material at 
  hand, I became a tester for others and helped 
  them pass their tests. Hence, I was always busy.
  We were all busy.
 
  We didn't have a lot of time in the day, 
  either, because we were rounding much of the time.
 
  TM teacher training for me was a cross between 
  military service and graduate school. Very intense. 
  I grew a lot.

 I thought that trying to pass memorization tests while way up in rounds 
 was insane.  It seemed to amplify any nervousness one might have whereas 
 testing down in rounds would have been much easier.  It was sort of like 
 trying to walk a tight rope while drunk.



Sounds like its own form of testing/training under induced stress.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  
  It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of MMY. Even if they think he's a
  fraud, TM still works in that it can deliver the ability to transcend
  effortlessly. Practice or believe anything you want and call it your
  religion. Hell, worship Beelzebub and do TM, it doesn't matter, it
 works.
 
 
 Works to do what?  For whom?  The TM party line is that it works for
 everyone.  I say that is not the case.  I say most people quit because
 of no positive effects.  A few people quit because of negative effects. 
 

Ddefine positive effect. TM is shown to reduce blood presure
in some people. DOes this mean that all those subjects should only keep
practicing because they NOTICE that their blood pressure is down?

DOes anyone ever notice such small reductions without measurement?

WOuld anyone who wasn't aware of the potential for BP affects of TM
decide to keep doing TM even if no other effect was there?

Would they be wise to go with thier own interla feelings in that case?



 What is the importance of transcendence?  You can't know that it isn't
 an artifact of the mind.  Through electrical stimulation the
 experience can be recreated in some.  

Can it? Perhaps. But HAS it? 

 
 So you like it, that is fine.  But it doesn't mean that it is for
 everyone and doesn't mean that it has some cosmic significance.  Maybe
 it does.  But maybe Buddhist meditation has cosmic significance. 
 Maybe prayer does.  Maybe doing an act of kindness does.  Maybe
 raising your children right does. I want to see results in the
 relative world because that is where we are.


Not all results can be seen by eyeballing the effect.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 [...]
  Judy, Vaj did not say one dishonest thing here. He asked if you said
  something, and if you had that position, you would be a TB. You said
  that you were stating MMY's position, which may or may not be your
  position.   End of story.  
  
  Okay, I've got to go back to reading via email so that I can skip
  these disturbing exchanges.
 
 
 
 What I find fascinating is that Vaj DOES assert these things, but
you deny it.
 
 
 Lawson

I don't follow.  I am just referring only to the post that Judy called
dishonest.  What was dishonest in the post?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
  [...]
   Judy, Vaj did not say one dishonest thing here. He asked if you said
   something, and if you had that position, you would be a TB. You said
   that you were stating MMY's position, which may or may not be your
   position.   End of story.  
   
   Okay, I've got to go back to reading via email so that I can skip
   these disturbing exchanges.
  
  
  
  What I find fascinating is that Vaj DOES assert these things, but
 you deny it.
  
  
  Lawson
 
 I don't follow.  I am just referring only to the post that Judy called
 dishonest.  What was dishonest in the post?


The tone, m'dear, the tone...


L

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
 
  -Original Message-
  From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@] 
  Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 2:06 PM
  To: David Orme-Johnson
  Subject: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders
  
  Dear Colleagues,
 
 The fact that the TM program has been derived from an ancient
 tradition in India and revived by a man revered there with a spiritual
 title, of course should have no bearing on the validity of the use of
 the TM program. The TM program is not Hinduism, therefore, any more
 than  Einstein's theory of relativity is Jewish, or Genetic theory,
 conceived of by  Monk Gregor Mendel is considered to be Christian. The
 practice of the program involves no religious beliefs but is a
 mechanical and effortless technique for experiencing increasingly
 refined or restful levels of mental and physiological activity enjoyed
 by individuals of all religious (and non-religious) backgrounds.
 
 I think this observation is preposterous, as if TM existed in a vacuum!


Well, tell that to my totally atheistic son, who learned when he was much
younger and still rolls his eyes at my obsession with the Maharishi Effect, etc,
and still does his program 2x a day. He's missed perhaps 2-3 times in the 
past decade and comments that he finds it uncomfortable to miss.


Can you accept that everyone isn't as TB about the practice as you are?

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:


 Well, tell that to my totally atheistic son, who learned when 
 he was much younger and still rolls his eyes at my obsession 
 with the Maharishi Effect, etc,
 and still does his program 2x a day. He's missed perhaps 2-3 
 times in the past decade and comments that he finds it 
 uncomfortable to miss.

That's an interesting case! Most people seem to need some kind of
belief system to keep up a regular practice of any kind. Would you say
that it is *purely* that he enjoys it? Or is his motivation that he
feels that it is good for his health or something?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
  
   -Original Message-
   From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@] 
   Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 2:06 PM
   To: David Orme-Johnson
   Subject: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders
   
   Dear Colleagues,
  
  The fact that the TM program has been derived from an ancient
  tradition in India and revived by a man revered there with a spiritual
  title, of course should have no bearing on the validity of the use of
  the TM program. The TM program is not Hinduism, therefore, any more
  than  Einstein's theory of relativity is Jewish, or Genetic theory,
  conceived of by  Monk Gregor Mendel is considered to be Christian. The
  practice of the program involves no religious beliefs but is a
  mechanical and effortless technique for experiencing increasingly
  refined or restful levels of mental and physiological activity enjoyed
  by individuals of all religious (and non-religious) backgrounds.
  
  I think this observation is preposterous, as if TM existed in a
vacuum!
 
 
 Well, tell that to my totally atheistic son, who learned when he was
much
 younger and still rolls his eyes at my obsession with the Maharishi
Effect, etc,
 and still does his program 2x a day. He's missed perhaps 2-3 times
in the 
 past decade and comments that he finds it uncomfortable to miss.
 
 
 Can you accept that everyone isn't as TB about the practice as you are?
 
 L.


There are all sorts of levels of belief, and I am sure that we all
agree on that.  And doesn't the true believer maintain no belief is
required if you just do it?

Anyway, at my level of belief--simple mediation is a relaxation
technique--my theory is that it is uncomfortable for him to quit
because he has made a strong habit out of meditating.  If he did quit
odds are in a month he wouldn't miss it.  Not that I am saying he
should quit.  

So, you have a son?  Me too.  Fun, huh.  :)  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
  
   -Original Message-
   From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@] 
   Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 2:06 PM
   To: David Orme-Johnson
   Subject: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders
   
   Dear Colleagues,
  
  The fact that the TM program has been derived from an ancient
  tradition in India and revived by a man revered there with a spiritual
  title, of course should have no bearing on the validity of the use of
  the TM program. The TM program is not Hinduism, therefore, any more
  than  Einstein's theory of relativity is Jewish, or Genetic theory,
  conceived of by  Monk Gregor Mendel is considered to be Christian. The
  practice of the program involves no religious beliefs but is a
  mechanical and effortless technique for experiencing increasingly
  refined or restful levels of mental and physiological activity enjoyed
  by individuals of all religious (and non-religious) backgrounds.
  
  I think this observation is preposterous, as if TM existed in a
vacuum!
 
 
 Well, tell that to my totally atheistic son, who learned when he was
much
 younger and still rolls his eyes at my obsession with the Maharishi
Effect, etc,
 and still does his program 2x a day. He's missed perhaps 2-3 times
in the 
 past decade and comments that he finds it uncomfortable to miss.
 
 
 Can you accept that everyone isn't as TB about the practice as you are?
 
 L.

I don't think your anecdotal story addresses the issue, it seems to
have more relevance to his particular belief system. It doesn't even
begin to address the issues surrounding Religion and TM(not
Religion and your son)!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:

 My sentiments as well, and yes, I'm sure it is/was tactical, though I
 think it will continue to dog them until they come clean and state
 emphatically that TM is not being taught as a Religion but has its
 foundation in Religion and that if you want the benefits of Religion
 you must practice Religion.
 
 They can't have their cake and eat it too, they want TM to be thought
 of as non-Religious yet providing all of the benefits of Religion.
 Unfortunately, such a course doesn't do justice to TM nor Religion. I
 would like it to be called a *Religious Science* which is more
 accurateIMO.
 

Pretty good take Billy.  

My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as surpassing religion.  Like
religion was for first graders and TM for graduate students.  

The religion question is partly an east-west issue of the nature of
religion.  From what I am reading, the mixing of religion and science
is common in fundamentalist Hinduism.  I posted a link a week or two
ago about how fundamentalist Hindus may view Hinduism as inclusive of
everything and to illustrate inclusiveness they use the language of
science to explain essentially religious concepts.  The language of
quantum physics has been used not just by the TMO but by Hindu
fundamentalists as well.  With this sort of world view neither their
religion nor their science is ever wrong, and you are just
unenlightened or uneducated if you do not buy their reasoning about
how it all fits together. Haglin, Nader, et al seem to fall into this
camp when talking about TM and science.  There are meditators here
that fall into the same camp. 


In contrast, fundamentalist Christians tend towards a more us versus
them view of religion and science.  If a scientific explanation
differs from a religious belief, the science is wrong. Religion trumps
science.  

As another aside, the guys drafted to write letters for Orme-Johnson's
site should sound a little less like they had help from the TMO in
writing the letters.  I am a bit sick of the 600 studies have shown
hoo hah.   






 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Vaj]

On Dec 30, 2008, at 6:39 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:


The religion question is partly an east-west issue of the nature of
religion.  From what I am reading, the mixing of religion and science
is common in fundamentalist Hinduism.  I posted a link a week or two
ago about how fundamentalist Hindus may view Hinduism as inclusive of
everything and to illustrate inclusiveness they use the language of
science to explain essentially religious concepts.  The language of
quantum physics has been used not just by the TMO but by Hindu
fundamentalists as well.  With this sort of world view neither their
religion nor their science is ever wrong, and you are just
unenlightened or uneducated if you do not buy their reasoning about
how it all fits together. Haglin, Nader, et al seem to fall into this
camp when talking about TM and science.  There are meditators here
that fall into the same camp.



What's important to understand is that MMY's strain of Vedic science  
is purely--from an eastern Indian POV--a fundamentalist trend. Both he  
and Guru Dev were associated with Right-wing political parties all of  
which, up to this day, are associated with trying declare the Vedas as  
an internal and external science. The bizarre thing is, to the western  
POV, these concepts seem very left, greenish. But these are the  
Indian parallels to western creation science (and Christian and Jewish  
fundamentalism), make no mistake. The most striking example of this is  
the guy who was originally voted to be the Shankaracharya before Guru  
Dev, Swami Karpatri. Sw. Karpatri declined the Shank. largely because  
he had founded a political party intending to reestablish Hinduism as  
a state religion. That party and trend continues up to the present and  
includes a movement that is trying to claim the Vedas are science and  
insert them into mainstream Hindu life. Islamic extremism is further  
fueling these fires of ignorance just as 9/11 energized the USA and  
our fundies.


Before MMY came to the forefront there was already a large movement to  
connect physics to the Vedas and mantra yoga, etc.


So don't make the mistake of not seeing MMY as a right-wing  
fundamentalist Hindu, he clearly was and this is easily demonstrated  
if one is willing to take the time and look into it. I highly  
recommend looking into the works of Meera Nanada, a Hindu rationalist,  
on Vedic Science


LINK

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Dec 30, 2008, at 6:39 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
  The religion question is partly an east-west issue of the nature of
  religion.  From what I am reading, the mixing of religion and science
  is common in fundamentalist Hinduism.  I posted a link a week or two
  ago about how fundamentalist Hindus may view Hinduism as inclusive of
  everything and to illustrate inclusiveness they use the language of
  science to explain essentially religious concepts.  The language of
  quantum physics has been used not just by the TMO but by Hindu
  fundamentalists as well.  With this sort of world view neither their
  religion nor their science is ever wrong, and you are just
  unenlightened or uneducated if you do not buy their reasoning about
  how it all fits together. Haglin, Nader, et al seem to fall into this
  camp when talking about TM and science.  There are meditators here
  that fall into the same camp.
 
 
 What's important to understand is that MMY's strain of Vedic science  
 is purely--from an eastern Indian POV--a fundamentalist trend. Both he  
 and Guru Dev were associated with Right-wing political parties all of  
 which, up to this day, are associated with trying declare the Vedas as  
 an internal and external science. The bizarre thing is, to the western  
 POV, these concepts seem very left, greenish. But these are the  
 Indian parallels to western creation science (and Christian and Jewish  
 fundamentalism), make no mistake. The most striking example of this is  
 the guy who was originally voted to be the Shankaracharya before Guru  
 Dev, Swami Karpatri. Sw. Karpatri declined the Shank. largely because  
 he had founded a political party intending to reestablish Hinduism as  
 a state religion. That party and trend continues up to the present and  
 includes a movement that is trying to claim the Vedas are science and  
 insert them into mainstream Hindu life. Islamic extremism is further  
 fueling these fires of ignorance just as 9/11 energized the USA and  
 our fundies.
 
 Before MMY came to the forefront there was already a large movement to  
 connect physics to the Vedas and mantra yoga, etc.
 
 So don't make the mistake of not seeing MMY as a right-wing  
 fundamentalist Hindu, he clearly was and this is easily demonstrated  
 if one is willing to take the time and look into it. I highly  
 recommend looking into the works of Meera Nanada, a Hindu rationalist,  
 on Vedic Science
 
 LINK

I echo your recommendation to read Nanada.  It was revealing to me to
see that it wasn't just the TM'ers talking vedic science.  

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Dec 30, 2008, at 6:39 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
  The religion question is partly an east-west issue of the nature of
  religion.  From what I am reading, the mixing of religion and science
  is common in fundamentalist Hinduism.  I posted a link a week or two
  ago about how fundamentalist Hindus may view Hinduism as inclusive of
  everything and to illustrate inclusiveness they use the language of
  science to explain essentially religious concepts.  The language of
  quantum physics has been used not just by the TMO but by Hindu
  fundamentalists as well.  With this sort of world view neither their
  religion nor their science is ever wrong, and you are just
  unenlightened or uneducated if you do not buy their reasoning about
  how it all fits together. Haglin, Nader, et al seem to fall into this
  camp when talking about TM and science.  There are meditators here
  that fall into the same camp.
 
 
 What's important to understand is that MMY's strain of Vedic science  
 is purely--from an eastern Indian POV--a fundamentalist trend. Both he  
 and Guru Dev were associated with Right-wing political parties all of  
 which, up to this day, are associated with trying declare the Vedas as  
 an internal and external science. The bizarre thing is, to the western  
 POV, these concepts seem very left, greenish. But these are the  
 Indian parallels to western creation science (and Christian and Jewish  
 fundamentalism), make no mistake. The most striking example of this is  
 the guy who was originally voted to be the Shankaracharya before Guru  
 Dev, Swami Karpatri. Sw. Karpatri declined the Shank. largely because  
 he had founded a political party intending to reestablish Hinduism as  
 a state religion. That party and trend continues up to the present and  
 includes a movement that is trying to claim the Vedas are science and  
 insert them into mainstream Hindu life. Islamic extremism is further  
 fueling these fires of ignorance just as 9/11 energized the USA and  
 our fundies.
 
 Before MMY came to the forefront there was already a large movement to  
 connect physics to the Vedas and mantra yoga, etc.
 
 So don't make the mistake of not seeing MMY as a right-wing  
 fundamentalist Hindu, he clearly was and this is easily demonstrated  
 if one is willing to take the time and look into it. I highly  
 recommend looking into the works of Meera Nanada, a Hindu rationalist,  
 on Vedic Science
 
 LINK

I strongly recommend reading Nanada.  From the article Vaj linked:

Here one finds an incredibly brazen claim: Because in Hinduism there
are no distinctions between the spirit and matter, one can understand
laws that regulate matter by studying the laws of the spirit. And the
laws of spirit can be understood by turning inward, through yoga and
meditation leading to mystical experiences. Within Hinduism, it is as
rational and scientific to take the non-sensory 'seeing'--that is
mystical and other meditative practices--as empirical evidence of the
spiritual and natural realm. This purported scientificity of the
spiritual realm, in turn, paves the way for declaring occult New Age
practices like astrology, vastu, quantum healing, and even yagnas as
scientific within the Vedic-Hindu universe.

Rather than encourage a critical spirit toward inherited traditions,
many of which are authoritarian and patriarchal, postmodernist
intellectuals have waged a battle against science. As the case of
Vedic science in the service of Hindu nationalism demonstrates, this
misguided attack on the Enlightenment has only aided the growth of
pseudoscience, superstitions and tribalism.


A poster here once intimated that yagyas were not religious, but
scientific.  

Uh huh.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
snip
  They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
  want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
  providing all of the benefits of Religion.
 
 Pretty good take Billy.

Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
live up to its potential.

 My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
 surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
 first graders and TM for graduate students.

Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
*without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
religion without TM is for first-graders. But
religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
it's undergirded by TM.

TM without religion is better than religion without
TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
fulfillment of both.

TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
reveal its profundity.

MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
 snip
   They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
   want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
   providing all of the benefits of Religion.
  
  Pretty good take Billy.
 
 Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
 the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
 religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
 live up to its potential.
 
  My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
  surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
  first graders and TM for graduate students.
 
 Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
 in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
 *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
 religion without TM is for first-graders. But
 religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
 it's undergirded by TM.
 
 TM without religion is better than religion without
 TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
 fulfillment of both.
 
 TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
 complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
 reveal its profundity.
 
 MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
 he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.

I haven't been reading your posts of late, Judy,  but caught this one
in a quick scan through recent posts.  I don't disagree with you on
how you think MMY viewed TM and religion.  I touched on the issue of
TM somehow surpassing religion and you stated it much better than I.  

But of course I have a but.  Clarity of TM?  Really?  I don't buy
that anymore.  

TM the technique may be simple but I do not find it profound. 
Religion need be no more complicated than TM.  Believe or don't
believe.  Have good experiences or don't have good experiences.  Find
god or don't find god. Buy into the extra baggage or don't buy into it.

I am bothered by statements like growing in the ground of TM is the
fulfillment of both and requires the clarity TM provides to reveal
its profundity.  There are plenty of traditionally religious people
who would find this contrary to their beliefs and even amount to idol
worship or the worship of one's self.  I do not believe in a personal
god, so this is not my issue.  My issue is that with MMY science is
stuck in the same pot as religion, and we may hear statements like
science growing in the ground of TM is the fulfillment of both or
science requires the clarity TM provides to reveal its profundity.  

I have heard TBs say as much.   Several have said that non-meditating
scientists who criticize research do not understand what they are
critiquing. Subtle is a word that comes up frequently.  Claims of
subtlety are too often just obtuse. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
  snip
They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
providing all of the benefits of Religion.
   
   Pretty good take Billy.
  
  Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
  the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
  religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
  live up to its potential.
  
   My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
   surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
   first graders and TM for graduate students.
  
  Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
  in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
  *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
  religion without TM is for first-graders. But
  religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
  it's undergirded by TM.
  
  TM without religion is better than religion without
  TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
  fulfillment of both.
  
  TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
  complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
  reveal its profundity.
  
  MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
  he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.
 
 I haven't been reading your posts of late, Judy,  but caught this one
 in a quick scan through recent posts.  I don't disagree with you on
 how you think MMY viewed TM and religion.  I touched on the issue of
 TM somehow surpassing religion and you stated it much better than I.  
 
 But of course I have a but.  Clarity of TM?  Really?  I don't buy
 that anymore.  
 
 TM the technique may be simple but I do not find it profound. 
 Religion need be no more complicated than TM.  Believe or don't
 believe.  Have good experiences or don't have good experiences.  Find
 god or don't find god. Buy into the extra baggage or don't buy into it.
 
 I am bothered by statements like growing in the ground of TM is the
 fulfillment of both and requires the clarity TM provides to reveal
 its profundity.  There are plenty of traditionally religious people
 who would find this contrary to their beliefs and even amount to idol
 worship or the worship of one's self.  I do not believe in a personal
 god, so this is not my issue.  My issue is that with MMY science is
 stuck in the same pot as religion, and we may hear statements like
 science growing in the ground of TM is the fulfillment of both or
 science requires the clarity TM provides to reveal its profundity.  
 
 I have heard TBs say as much.   Several have said that non-meditating
 scientists who criticize research do not understand what they are
 critiquing. Subtle is a word that comes up frequently.  Claims of
 subtlety are too often just obtuse.



Back to the religion issue, from an old post of mine:

There has been several discussions on TM and
religion over the past couple of days. There also has been discussions
about whether TM or other effortless meditation techniques were used
in the ancient world.

Well, I recently pulled out my old smelly copy of The Science of Being
and the Art of Living, and here are some quotes of MMY in the section
on religion:

The inner light of religion is missing from religious teachings; this
is the case all over the world, with the result that peace and
happiness are absent from the lives of people and everywhere tensions
are increasing.

It is time that transcendental meditation is adopted in churches,
temples, mosques, and pagodas.

Here in a simple practice is the fulfillment of every religion. It
belongs to the spirit of every religion and has since been lost.

Unfortunately, religious teachers seem to have put the cart before
the horse. They advise man to behave righteously, teaching that
through right action he will gain purity and be able to realize God.
The right approach would be to offer a direct way of gaining
God-consciousness. Established in higher consciousness, man would
naturally behave righteously. Man behaves from his level of
consciousness. Therefore any teaching of right action without a means
of raising consciousness will always be ineffective. It is much easier
to raise man's consciousness than to get him to act righteously.

The key to the fulfillment of every religion is found in the practice
of transcendental meditation.

This meditation is no threat to the authority of priests or
ministers. It is something which belongs to their religions but which
has been forgotten for many centuries.


Not a lot of respect for religion here and is consistent with Judy's
post.  

I do think that it is bullshit that TM belonged to the religions but
was forgotten for centuries.  Who suddenly remembered and why should
we take their word for it?  If TM was so great, why was it forgotten?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[Vaj]

On Dec 30, 2008, at 8:17 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:

snip

They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
providing all of the benefits of Religion.


Pretty good take Billy.


Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
live up to its potential.


My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
first graders and TM for graduate students.


Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
*without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
religion without TM is for first-graders. But
religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
it's undergirded by TM.

TM without religion is better than religion without
TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
fulfillment of both.

TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
reveal its profundity.

MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.


I haven't been reading your posts of late, Judy,  but caught this one
in a quick scan through recent posts.  I don't disagree with you on
how you think MMY viewed TM and religion.  I touched on the issue of
TM somehow surpassing religion and you stated it much better than I.

But of course I have a but.  Clarity of TM?  Really?  I don't buy
that anymore.

TM the technique may be simple but I do not find it profound.
Religion need be no more complicated than TM.  Believe or don't
believe.  Have good experiences or don't have good experiences.  Find
god or don't find god. Buy into the extra baggage or don't buy into  
it.


I am bothered by statements like growing in the ground of TM is the
fulfillment of both and requires the clarity TM provides to reveal
its profundity.  There are plenty of traditionally religious people
who would find this contrary to their beliefs and even amount to idol
worship or the worship of one's self.  I do not believe in a personal
god, so this is not my issue.  My issue is that with MMY science is
stuck in the same pot as religion, and we may hear statements like
science growing in the ground of TM is the fulfillment of both or
science requires the clarity TM provides to reveal its profundity.

I have heard TBs say as much.   Several have said that non-meditating
scientists who criticize research do not understand what they are
critiquing. Subtle is a word that comes up frequently.  Claims of
subtlety are too often just obtuse.


Wow, I haven't been reading her stuff either, other than the sad  
overspill. Did she really say all that? It sounds like something a TB  
fanatic would say.


Well there goes any claim against our Dear Editor not being a rabid TM  
TB, Jesus! It never ceases to amaze me what depths of delusion  
addiction to thought-free states can lead someone to, esp. someone  
like Judy who occasionally says something intelligent.


Of course they could've just been cut--paste jobs from the Wikipedia.

That certainly topped off 2008 for me: thoughtless = transcendence =  
gnosis = the ground of TM is the
fulfillment of religion; beyond graduate study; religion 'living up  
to it's potential'. Now that's thoughtlessness for ya! Scary example  
of major thought reform.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
 snip
   They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
   want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
   providing all of the benefits of Religion.
  
  Pretty good take Billy.

Gracias

 Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
 the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
 religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
 live up to its potential.

If that's the case then why aren't they (the tmorg) practicing
Religionor, are they? And calling it Vedic Science?  You see, it's
all semantic.  Vedic Science is Religion, and TM is one part of it.
Sanatana Dharma, the eternal Religion of the Vedas.


 
  My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
  surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
  first graders and TM for graduate students.
 
 Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
 in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
 *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
 religion without TM is for first-graders. But
 religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
 it's undergirded by TM.

Yes, and they (the tmorg) practice the eternal Religion of the Vedas
and call it Vedic Science.

 TM without religion is better than religion without
 TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
 fulfillment of both.

True, so what Religion are you? Or have you become another casualty
and adopted TM *in lieu of* Religion?
 
 TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
 complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
 reveal its profundity.
 
 MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
 he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.

True..but he never promoted it either, other than a few comments
here and there. Mainly because he was secretly promoting 'Vedic
Science', the Mother of All Religions!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
  snip
They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
providing all of the benefits of Religion.
   
   Pretty good take Billy.
  
  Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
  the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
  religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
  live up to its potential.
  
   My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
   surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
   first graders and TM for graduate students.
  
  Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
  in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
  *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
  religion without TM is for first-graders. But
  religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
  it's undergirded by TM.
  
  TM without religion is better than religion without
  TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
  fulfillment of both.
  
  TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
  complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
  reveal its profundity.
  
  MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
  he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.
 
 I haven't been reading your posts of late, Judy,  but
 caught this one in a quick scan through recent posts.
 I don't disagree with you on how you think MMY viewed TM
 and religion.

Actually it's what he's said, in his books and in
lectures (not using the same metaphors, though).

  I touched on the issue of TM somehow
 surpassing religion and you stated it much better than I.

Then perhaps I didn't get my point across, because
surpassing isn't a term I'd ever use in this
connection. It completely misstates the nature of
the relationship between TM and religion. And as I
said, your original notion that religion is for
first-graders and TM for graduate students has it
exactly backward, as far as MMY was concerned.

A better metaphor (with the elements in the right
order) would be that TM is like learning to read,
and religion is like studying great literature.

But all metaphors are imprecise in one way or
another. You can't study great literature at all
if you can't read; but you can do religion on 
an elementary level if you don't practice TM.
(And some people can do it on an advanced
level without TM, but that's a whole 'nother
kettle of shrimp.)

 But of course I have a but.  Clarity of TM?  Really?
 I don't buy that anymore.

I didn't say clarity of TM. I said religion
requires the clarity TM provides to live up to its
potential.

 TM the technique may be simple but I do not
 find it profound.

Not interested in discussing this with you. Our
experience and understanding of TM is too
different.

 Religion need be no more complicated than TM.

Or this. (Seems we're using *very* different
definitions of religion. Probably of profound
as well.)

 I am bothered by statements like growing in the
 ground of TM is the fulfillment of both and
 requires the clarity TM provides to reveal its
 profundity.

Sorry to have bothered you.

  There are plenty of traditionally religious
 people who would find this contrary to their beliefs
 and even amount to idol worship or the worship of
 one's self.

No doubt, especially if they've never practiced TM.

  I do not believe in a personal
 god, so this is not my issue.  My issue is that
 with MMY science is stuck in the same pot as
 religion, and we may hear statements like science
 growing in the ground of TM is the fulfillment of
 both or science requires the clarity TM provides
 to reveal its profundity.

Well, I'm not making such statements. I have no
intention of discussing with you the relationship 
between TM (or religion or spiritual practices in
general) either, at least not until you've read
Ken Wilber's take on this question in his book
Eye to Eye.

All I intended to do was correct your first grade/
graduate study misunderstanding of how MMY viewed
TM in relation to religion.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Dec 30, 2008, at 8:17 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
  wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
  snip
  They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
  want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
  providing all of the benefits of Religion.
 
  Pretty good take Billy.
 
  Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
  the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
  religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
  live up to its potential.
 
  My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
  surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
  first graders and TM for graduate students.
 
  Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
  in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
  *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
  religion without TM is for first-graders. But
  religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
  it's undergirded by TM.
 
  TM without religion is better than religion without
  TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
  fulfillment of both.
 
  TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
  complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
  reveal its profundity.
 
  MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
  he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.
 
  I haven't been reading your posts of late, Judy,  but caught this one
  in a quick scan through recent posts.  I don't disagree with you on
  how you think MMY viewed TM and religion.  I touched on the issue of
  TM somehow surpassing religion and you stated it much better than I.
 
  But of course I have a but.  Clarity of TM?  Really?  I don't buy
  that anymore.
 
  TM the technique may be simple but I do not find it profound.
  Religion need be no more complicated than TM.  Believe or don't
  believe.  Have good experiences or don't have good experiences.  Find
  god or don't find god. Buy into the extra baggage or don't buy into  
  it.
 
  I am bothered by statements like growing in the ground of TM is the
  fulfillment of both and requires the clarity TM provides to reveal
  its profundity.  There are plenty of traditionally religious people
  who would find this contrary to their beliefs and even amount to idol
  worship or the worship of one's self.  I do not believe in a personal
  god, so this is not my issue.  My issue is that with MMY science is
  stuck in the same pot as religion, and we may hear statements like
  science growing in the ground of TM is the fulfillment of both or
  science requires the clarity TM provides to reveal its profundity.
 
  I have heard TBs say as much.   Several have said that non-meditating
  scientists who criticize research do not understand what they are
  critiquing. Subtle is a word that comes up frequently.  Claims of
  subtlety are too often just obtuse.
 
 Wow, I haven't been reading her stuff either, other than the sad  
 overspill. Did she really say all that? It sounds like something a TB  
 fanatic would say.
 
 Well there goes any claim against our Dear Editor not being a rabid TM  
 TB, Jesus! It never ceases to amaze me what depths of delusion  
 addiction to thought-free states can lead someone to, esp. someone  
 like Judy who occasionally says something intelligent.
 
 Of course they could've just been cut--paste jobs from the Wikipedia.
 
 That certainly topped off 2008 for me: thoughtless = transcendence =  
 gnosis = the ground of TM is the
 fulfillment of religion; beyond graduate study; religion 'living up  
 to it's potential'. Now that's thoughtlessness for ya! Scary example  
 of major thought reform.

I think that she was saying what MMY's position was regarding
religion, not stating her own position.  She rarely states her own
position on matters TM.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 
wrote:
snip
[quoting MMY:]
 This meditation is no threat to the authority of
 priests or ministers. It is something which belongs to
 their religions but which has been forgotten for many
 centuries. 
 
 Not a lot of respect for religion here

Not for religion that isn't supported by a
practice of regular transcending. Obviously
he isn't saying one should reject religion.

 I do think that it is bullshit that TM belonged
 to the religions but was forgotten for centuries.

The important point is that religions developed
from experiences of transcendence; they're the
external manifestations of internal experience.
The external manifestation doesn't do you nearly
as much good by itself as when you have the inner
experience of which it's the manifestation.

  Who suddenly remembered and why should
 we take their word for it?  If TM was so great,
 why was it forgotten?

Too easy to get the practice of regular
transcending wrong.

 Is this back to the Hindu fundamentalist belief
 that their path is the path and the rest is just
 stuff for the relative world, mostly irrelevant?

No.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
   snip
 They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
 want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
 providing all of the benefits of Religion.

Pretty good take Billy.
   
   Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
   the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
   religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
   live up to its potential.
   
My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
first graders and TM for graduate students.
   
   Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
   in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
   *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
   religion without TM is for first-graders. But
   religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
   it's undergirded by TM.
   
   TM without religion is better than religion without
   TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
   fulfillment of both.
   
   TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
   complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
   reveal its profundity.
   
   MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
   he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.
  
  I haven't been reading your posts of late, Judy,  but
  caught this one in a quick scan through recent posts.
  I don't disagree with you on how you think MMY viewed TM
  and religion.
 
 Actually it's what he's said, in his books and in
 lectures (not using the same metaphors, though).
 
   I touched on the issue of TM somehow
  surpassing religion and you stated it much better than I.
 
 Then perhaps I didn't get my point across, because
 surpassing isn't a term I'd ever use in this
 connection. It completely misstates the nature of
 the relationship between TM and religion. And as I
 said, your original notion that religion is for
 first-graders and TM for graduate students has it
 exactly backward, as far as MMY was concerned.
 
 A better metaphor (with the elements in the right
 order) would be that TM is like learning to read,
 and religion is like studying great literature.
 
 But all metaphors are imprecise in one way or
 another. You can't study great literature at all
 if you can't read; but you can do religion on 
 an elementary level if you don't practice TM.
 (And some people can do it on an advanced
 level without TM, but that's a whole 'nother
 kettle of shrimp.)
 
  But of course I have a but.  Clarity of TM?  Really?
  I don't buy that anymore.
 
 I didn't say clarity of TM. I said religion
 requires the clarity TM provides to live up to its
 potential.
 
  TM the technique may be simple but I do not
  find it profound.
 
 Not interested in discussing this with you. Our
 experience and understanding of TM is too
 different.
 
  Religion need be no more complicated than TM.
 
 Or this. (Seems we're using *very* different
 definitions of religion. Probably of profound
 as well.)
 
  I am bothered by statements like growing in the
  ground of TM is the fulfillment of both and
  requires the clarity TM provides to reveal its
  profundity.
 
 Sorry to have bothered you.
 
   There are plenty of traditionally religious
  people who would find this contrary to their beliefs
  and even amount to idol worship or the worship of
  one's self.
 
 No doubt, especially if they've never practiced TM.
 
   I do not believe in a personal
  god, so this is not my issue.  My issue is that
  with MMY science is stuck in the same pot as
  religion, and we may hear statements like science
  growing in the ground of TM is the fulfillment of
  both or science requires the clarity TM provides
  to reveal its profundity.
 
 Well, I'm not making such statements. I have no
 intention of discussing with you the relationship 
 between TM (or religion or spiritual practices in
 general) either, at least not until you've read
 Ken Wilber's take on this question in his book
 Eye to Eye.
 
 All I intended to do was correct your first grade/
 graduate study misunderstanding of how MMY viewed
 TM in relation to religion.


 Gee, I am always reminded as to why I don't read your posts and only
gingerly tread on this forum, afraid that someday someone will figure
out who I am and I will become public fodder for you like Sloznik or
Knapp.

A person with some graciousness would say that my thoughts on how MMY
viewed religion were close, but now quite right, that MMY actually
said . . . .   I graciously conceded that you were more accurate with
how MMY viewed religion. I never have seen grace from you.  Ever. You
and Nabby are a prime examples to me of how TM does not make better

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
 
 On Dec 30, 2008, at 8:17 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
  wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
  snip
  They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
  want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
  providing all of the benefits of Religion.
 
  Pretty good take Billy.
 
  Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
  the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
  religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
  live up to its potential.
 
  My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
  surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
  first graders and TM for graduate students.
 
  Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
  in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
  *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
  religion without TM is for first-graders. But
  religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
  it's undergirded by TM.
 
  TM without religion is better than religion without
  TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
  fulfillment of both.
 
  TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
  complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
  reveal its profundity.
 
  MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
  he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.
snip
  My issue is that with MMY science is stuck in
  the same pot as religion, and we may hear
  statements like science growing in the ground
  of TM is the fulfillment of both or science
  requires the clarity TM provides to reveal its
  profundity.
 
  I have heard TBs say as much.   Several have said 
  that non-meditating scientists who criticize 
  research do not understand what they are critiquing.
  Subtle is a word that comes up frequently.  Claims
  of subtlety are too often just obtuse.
 
 Wow, I haven't been reading her stuff either,
 other than the sad overspill. Did she really say
 all that?

No, she didn't say all that. Ruth said a lot of it.
What I said is quoted at the top, correcting Ruth's
misunderstanding about MMY thinking religion was for
first-graders and TM was for graduate students.

 It sounds like something a TB fanatic would say.

Yeah, it's what MMY said, actually.

 Well there goes any claim against our Dear Editor
 not being a rabid TM TB, Jesus!

Uh, no, it doesn't, as Vaj knows. In the first place,
I was explaining to Ruth what *MMY* thought, not what
I thought. For me, it's a working hypothesis, not a
True Belief. In the second place, TBs take everything
MMY said as gospel, whereas I obviously do not.

 It never ceases to amaze me what depths of delusion  
 addiction to thought-free states can lead someone to,
 esp. someone like Judy who occasionally says something
 intelligent.

It's really too bad Vaj never had good experiences
with TM. Maybe if he had, he wouldn't be so 
dishonest.

 Of course they could've just been cut--paste jobs
 from the Wikipedia.

horselaugh

Nope, sorry. All me own words.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
   snip
 They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
 want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
 providing all of the benefits of Religion.
   
Pretty good take Billy.
  
   Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
   the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
   religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
   live up to its potential.
  
My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
first graders and TM for graduate students.
  
   Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
   in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
   *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
   religion without TM is for first-graders. But
   religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
   it's undergirded by TM.
  
   TM without religion is better than religion without
   TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
   fulfillment of both.
  
   TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
   complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
   reveal its profundity.
  
   MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
   he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.
  
  I haven't been reading your posts of late, Judy,  but
  caught this one in a quick scan through recent posts.
  I don't disagree with you on how you think MMY viewed TM
  and religion.

 Actually it's what he's said, in his books and in
 lectures (not using the same metaphors, though).

Yes, I know.  I just posted some quotes.

   I touched on the issue of TM somehow
  surpassing religion and you stated it much better than I.

 Then perhaps I didn't get my point across, because
 surpassing isn't a term I'd ever use in this
 connection. It completely misstates the nature of
 the relationship between TM and religion. And as I
 said, your original notion that religion is for
 first-graders and TM for graduate students has it
 exactly backward, as far as MMY was concerned.

 A better metaphor (with the elements in the right
 order) would be that TM is like learning to read,
 and religion is like studying great literature.

 But all metaphors are imprecise in one way or
 another. You can't study great literature at all
 if you can't read; but you can do religion on
 an elementary level if you don't practice TM.
 (And some people can do it on an advanced
 level without TM, but that's a whole 'nother
 kettle of shrimp.)

  But of course I have a but.  Clarity of TM?  Really?
  I don't buy that anymore.

 I didn't say clarity of TM. I said religion
 requires the clarity TM provides to live up to its
 potential.

Wow!  Talk about argumentative.   Fuck!  I added the word of!   I have
never met a person more pedantic than you.

  TM the technique may be simple but I do not
  find it profound.

 Not interested in discussing this with you. Our
 experience and understanding of TM is too
 different.

  Religion need be no more complicated than TM.

 Or this. (Seems we're using *very* different
 definitions of religion. Probably of profound
 as well.)

  I am bothered by statements like growing in the
  ground of TM is the fulfillment of both and
  requires the clarity TM provides to reveal its
  profundity.

 Sorry to have bothered you.

   There are plenty of traditionally religious
  people who would find this contrary to their beliefs
  and even amount to idol worship or the worship of
  one's self.

 No doubt, especially if they've never practiced TM.

   I do not believe in a personal
  god, so this is not my issue.  My issue is that
  with MMY science is stuck in the same pot as
  religion, and we may hear statements like science
  growing in the ground of TM is the fulfillment of
  both or science requires the clarity TM provides
  to reveal its profundity.

 Well, I'm not making such statements. I have no
 intention of discussing with you the relationship
 between TM (or religion or spiritual practices in
 general) either, at least not until you've read
 Ken Wilber's take on this question in his book
 Eye to Eye.

 All I intended to do was correct your first grade/
 graduate study misunderstanding of how MMY viewed
 TM in relation to religion.

Gee, I am always reminded as to why I don't read your posts and only
gingerly tread on this forum, afraid that someday someone will figure
out who I am and I will become public fodder for you like Sloznik or
Knapp.

A person with some graciousness would say that my thoughts on how MMY
viewed religion were close, but now quite right, that MMY actually
said . . . .  I graciously conceded that you were more accurate with
how MMY viewed 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  
  On Dec 30, 2008, at 8:17 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
 wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
   wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
   snip
   They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
   want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
   providing all of the benefits of Religion.
  
   Pretty good take Billy.
  
   Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
   the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
   religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
   live up to its potential.
  
   My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
   surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
   first graders and TM for graduate students.
  
   Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
   in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
   *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
   religion without TM is for first-graders. But
   religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
   it's undergirded by TM.
  
   TM without religion is better than religion without
   TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
   fulfillment of both.
  
   TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
   complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
   reveal its profundity.
  
   MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
   he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.
 snip
   My issue is that with MMY science is stuck in
   the same pot as religion, and we may hear
   statements like science growing in the ground
   of TM is the fulfillment of both or science
   requires the clarity TM provides to reveal its
   profundity.
  
   I have heard TBs say as much.   Several have said 
   that non-meditating scientists who criticize 
   research do not understand what they are critiquing.
   Subtle is a word that comes up frequently.  Claims
   of subtlety are too often just obtuse.
  
  Wow, I haven't been reading her stuff either,
  other than the sad overspill. Did she really say
  all that?
 
 No, she didn't say all that. Ruth said a lot of it.
 What I said is quoted at the top, correcting Ruth's
 misunderstanding about MMY thinking religion was for
 first-graders and TM was for graduate students.
 
  It sounds like something a TB fanatic would say.
 
 Yeah, it's what MMY said, actually.
 
  Well there goes any claim against our Dear Editor
  not being a rabid TM TB, Jesus!
 
 Uh, no, it doesn't, as Vaj knows. In the first place,
 I was explaining to Ruth what *MMY* thought, not what
 I thought. For me, it's a working hypothesis, not a
 True Belief. In the second place, TBs take everything
 MMY said as gospel, whereas I obviously do not.
 
  It never ceases to amaze me what depths of delusion  
  addiction to thought-free states can lead someone to,
  esp. someone like Judy who occasionally says something
  intelligent.
 
 It's really too bad Vaj never had good experiences
 with TM. Maybe if he had, he wouldn't be so 
 dishonest.
 
  Of course they could've just been cut--paste jobs
  from the Wikipedia.
 
 horselaugh
 
 Nope, sorry. All me own words.


Judy, Vaj did not say one dishonest thing here. He asked if you said
something, and if you had that position, you would be a TB. You said
that you were stating MMY's position, which may or may not be your
position.   End of story.  

Okay, I've got to go back to reading via email so that I can skip
these disturbing exchanges.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 You are too mean. I have talked
 to people who have interacted with you on this board or alt.tm and
 have long stayed away because you are so mean. 

jstein mean? Not from my experience, stubborn yes!!   :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
 wrote:
 snip
 [quoting MMY:]
  This meditation is no threat to the authority of
  priests or ministers. It is something which belongs to
  their religions but which has been forgotten for many
  centuries.
 
  Not a lot of respect for religion here

 Not for religion that isn't supported by a
 practice of regular transcending. Obviously
 he isn't saying one should reject religion.

Obviously.  But not just transcending.  TM brand transcending.

  I do think that it is bullshit that TM belonged
  to the religions but was forgotten for centuries.

 The important point is that religions developed
 from experiences of transcendence; they're the
 external manifestations of internal experience.
 The external manifestation doesn't do you nearly
 as much good by itself as when you have the inner
 experience of which it's the manifestation.

The important point is that he is saying religions have it wrong and
must incorporate TM brand meditation to have it right.

   Who suddenly remembered and why should
  we take their word for it?  If TM was so great,
  why was it forgotten?

 Too easy to get the practice of regular
 transcending wrong.

Really?  How do you know that?I transcend, I know I transcend.  But
not from TM.

  Is this back to the Hindu fundamentalist belief
  that their path is the path and the rest is just
  stuff for the relative world, mostly irrelevant?

 No.


Maybe yes, maybe no.

I wasn't going to talk to you about religion and you weren't going to
talk to me about religion.  Does this make us both liars?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  You are too mean. I have talked
  to people who have interacted with you on this board or alt.tm and
  have long stayed away because you are so mean. 
 
 jstein mean? Not from my experience, stubborn yes!!   :-)

Whatever.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[curtisdeltablues]

I'm with Billy on this one.  He has it right from the non public
presentation of TM belief system.  Since he believed that religions
expressed more or less of the laws of nature in their purity the
further you went from his precious Hinduism and India, the hierarchy
was made clear.  His teaching was more pure than Hinduism in his mind,
the magical Vedic teaching.  The Cistercian monks who spent time with
the movement caught on and eventually left any TM involvement.  I know
because I talked with the Abbot in Spencer Mass. about their concerns.
 (Of course I equally reject that they had figured out the secret of
eternal life somehow but that is another topic!)

No one on full time staff could consider going to some religious
service and skipping program without getting bounced.  And the closer
you got to him the more religious exclusion there was.

He had a similar condescension for the scientific method, pay it lip
service to its importance for marketing purposes but laugh about it
with your full timers. TM is not taught in a vacuum, but the more
involved you get the more beliefs are added.  Buy the time you are
full time you get the message about the superiority of the Hindu
religion to any other.  Their religious rituals are contacting the
laws of nature directly.  That was not what he believed about other
religious rituals which were just symbols for the real deal.  Which he
happened to have exclusive trademarked rights too.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
  snip
They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
providing all of the benefits of Religion.
   
   Pretty good take Billy.
 
 Gracias
 
  Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
  the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
  religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
  live up to its potential.
 
 If that's the case then why aren't they (the tmorg) practicing
 Religionor, are they? And calling it Vedic Science?  You see, it's
 all semantic.  Vedic Science is Religion, and TM is one part of it.
 Sanatana Dharma, the eternal Religion of the Vedas.
 
 
  
   My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
   surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
   first graders and TM for graduate students.
  
  Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
  in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
  *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
  religion without TM is for first-graders. But
  religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
  it's undergirded by TM.
 
 Yes, and they (the tmorg) practice the eternal Religion of the Vedas
 and call it Vedic Science.
 
  TM without religion is better than religion without
  TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
  fulfillment of both.
 
 True, so what Religion are you? Or have you become another casualty
 and adopted TM *in lieu of* Religion?
  
  TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
  complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
  reveal its profundity.
  
  MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
  he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.
 
 True..but he never promoted it either, other than a few comments
 here and there. Mainly because he was secretly promoting 'Vedic
 Science', the Mother of All Religions!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 I'm with Billy on this one.  He has it right from the non public
 presentation of TM belief system.  Since he believed that religions
 expressed more or less of the laws of nature in their purity the
 further you went from his precious Hinduism and India, the hierarchy
 was made clear.  His teaching was more pure than Hinduism in his mind,
 the magical Vedic teaching.  The Cistercian monks who spent time with
 the movement caught on and eventually left any TM involvement.  I know
 because I talked with the Abbot in Spencer Mass. about their concerns.
  (Of course I equally reject that they had figured out the secret of
 eternal life somehow but that is another topic!)
 
 No one on full time staff could consider going to some religious
 service and skipping program without getting bounced.  And the closer
 you got to him the more religious exclusion there was.
 
 He had a similar condescension for the scientific method, pay it lip
 service to its importance for marketing purposes but laugh about it
 with your full timers. TM is not taught in a vacuum, but the more
 involved you get the more beliefs are added.  Buy the time you are
 full time you get the message about the superiority of the Hindu
 religion to any other.  Their religious rituals are contacting the
 laws of nature directly.  That was not what he believed about other
 religious rituals which were just symbols for the real deal.  Which he
 happened to have exclusive trademarked rights too.
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
   snip
 They can't have their cake and eat it too, they
 want TM to be thought of as non-Religious yet
 providing all of the benefits of Religion.

Pretty good take Billy.
  
  Gracias
  
   Not really. TM isn't thought of as providing all
   the benefits of religion. Rather, it enables
   religion to provide vastly expanded benefits, to
   live up to its potential.
  
  If that's the case then why aren't they (the tmorg) practicing
  Religionor, are they? And calling it Vedic Science?  You see, it's
  all semantic.  Vedic Science is Religion, and TM is one part of it.
  Sanatana Dharma, the eternal Religion of the Vedas.
  
  
   
My feeling is that MMY thought of TM as
surpassing religion.  Like religion was for
first graders and TM for graduate students.
   
   Not at all. The reverse, in fact. TM is the ground
   in which religion is rooted and nourished. Religion
   *without* TM is, well, groundless. You might say
   religion without TM is for first-graders. But
   religion becomes graduate study (and beyond) when
   it's undergirded by TM.
  
  Yes, and they (the tmorg) practice the eternal Religion of the Vedas
  and call it Vedic Science.
  
   TM without religion is better than religion without
   TM, but religion growing in the ground of TM is the
   fulfillment of both.
  
  True, so what Religion are you? Or have you become another casualty
  and adopted TM *in lieu of* Religion?
   
   TM is utterly simple and profound; religion is very
   complicated and requires the clarity TM provides to
   reveal its profundity.
   
   MMY was very much in favor of religious practice, but
   he thought it wasn't worth much in the absence of TM.
  
  True..but he never promoted it either, other than a few comments
  here and there. Mainly because he was secretly promoting 'Vedic
  Science', the Mother of All Religions!
 

Thanks Billy and Curtis for fleshing this out further.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 I'm with Billy on this one.  

Thanks guys for explaining more than what I had from Science of Being
Art of Living and from what Judy said about MMY's beliefs concerning
religion. 

Funny topic for me to get my panties into a wad about because I am not
religious.  But, science seems to get treated with the same
disrespect.  Believing Vedic Science underlies everything is a
science killer. 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 That's pretty funny, considering your outbursts
 in the post I'm responding to (most of which I've
 deleted). Fortunately I have a very thick skin.


I do not like to argue but I also do not like to be patronized.  So my
outburst, as you call it, was caused by your usual patronizing manner.
 You can chuckle all you want.  I am sure you get pleasure out of
baiting me.   I am also sure that you have a thick skin.  I don't.  So
I react.  And I see how you treat others.   Judy, do you realize that
some people actually are a bit afraid of you?  Not because you might
expose them as some sort of liar, as you are wont to say, but because
you are so vicious in your attacks.  I am afraid of you.  I am not
afraid to admit that.  

From what Curtis and Billy are saying, maybe my off hand analogy is
not as dead wrong as you say.  

My horse is no higher than your horse.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 
wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
  wrote:
  snip
  [quoting MMY:]
   This meditation is no threat to the authority of
   priests or ministers. It is something which belongs to
   their religions but which has been forgotten for many
   centuries.
  
   Not a lot of respect for religion here
 
  Not for religion that isn't supported by a
  practice of regular transcending. Obviously
  he isn't saying one should reject religion.
 
 Obviously.  But not just transcending.  TM brand
 transcending.

Effective, systematic regular transcending. He
considered TM to be the only such practice available,
but he said if there were others, they'd also be
called transcendental meditation. With regard to
ancient times, he was obviously using TM in the
generic sense.

   I do think that it is bullshit that TM belonged
   to the religions but was forgotten for centuries.
 
  The important point is that religions developed
  from experiences of transcendence; they're the
  external manifestations of internal experience.
  The external manifestation doesn't do you nearly
  as much good by itself as when you have the inner
  experience of which it's the manifestation.
 
 The important point is that he is saying religions
 have it wrong and must incorporate TM brand meditation
 to have it right.

No, the important point is that religions developed
from experiences of transcendence; they're the
external manifestations of internal experience. The
external manifestation doesn't do you nearly as much
good by itself as when you have the inner experience
of which it's the manifestation.

Who suddenly remembered and why should
   we take their word for it?  If TM was so great,
   why was it forgotten?
 
  Too easy to get the practice of regular
  transcending wrong.
 
 Really?  How do you know that?

Lots of residence courses listening to people
describe what they're doing when they think they're
doing TM, among other things. Also, if you really
look closely at the instructions for TM, it becomes
self-evident how exceptionally delicate it is to
teach.

 I transcend, I know I transcend.  But not from TM.

Non sequitur.

 I wasn't going to talk to you about religion
 and you weren't going to talk to me about religion.
 Does this make us both liars?

See my previous post. I meant to say something
different. You did say you were going to start
ignoring my posts again, though, so this does
make you a liar.

From another post of yours:

 Judy, Vaj did not say one dishonest thing here.

Yes, he did. I cut most of it out, so you aren't
seeing it all in the post of mine you're responding
to. But it doesn't apply to just that post by any
means. This was only one of many examples.

 He asked if you said
 something, and if you had that position, you would
 be a TB.

Yeah, that isn't what TB means around here. He
knows I'm not a TB.

Regardless of honesty or lack of same, would you
call what he said mean? (Just, you know, out of
curiosity. Go back to his original post for the
full nine yards.)

Sorry I won't be able to continue this delightful
discussion with you, but I'm almost out of posts
for the week (and I won't be able to post again
until Sunday, if then, because I'm going out of
town and will have limited access to a computer).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
   wrote:
   snip
   [quoting MMY:]
This meditation is no threat to the authority of
priests or ministers. It is something which belongs to
their religions but which has been forgotten for many
centuries.
   
Not a lot of respect for religion here
  
   Not for religion that isn't supported by a
   practice of regular transcending. Obviously
   he isn't saying one should reject religion.
 
  Obviously.  But not just transcending.  TM brand
  transcending.

 Effective, systematic regular transcending. He
 considered TM to be the only such practice available,
 but he said if there were others, they'd also be
 called transcendental meditation. With regard to
 ancient times, he was obviously using TM in the
 generic sense.

Yup, TM brand meditation.  As I said above.

I do think that it is bullshit that TM belonged
to the religions but was forgotten for centuries.
  
   The important point is that religions developed
   from experiences of transcendence; they're the
   external manifestations of internal experience.
   The external manifestation doesn't do you nearly
   as much good by itself as when you have the inner
   experience of which it's the manifestation.
 
  The important point is that he is saying religions
  have it wrong and must incorporate TM brand meditation
  to have it right.

 No, the important point is that religions developed
 from experiences of transcendence; they're the
 external manifestations of internal experience. The
 external manifestation doesn't do you nearly as much
 good by itself as when you have the inner experience
 of which it's the manifestation.

You are repeating yourself.  The important point is that whatever path
the religion prescribes as the way to god is not good enough, you have
to have TM.

 Who suddenly remembered and why should
we take their word for it?  If TM was so great,
why was it forgotten?
  
   Too easy to get the practice of regular
   transcending wrong.
 
  Really?  How do you know that?

 Lots of residence courses listening to people
 describe what they're doing when they think they're
 doing TM, among other things. Also, if you really
 look closely at the instructions for TM, it becomes
 self-evident how exceptionally delicate it is to
 teach.

Oh, I don't think so.  I think you are fooling yourself.  I am sure I
could teach TM.  Anyone good at putting someone in a suggestible state
could teach TM.  But the more the teacher believed, probably the better.

  I transcend, I know I transcend.  But not from TM.

 Non sequitur.

No it is not.   What I said logically followed the prior statements. 
Check your logic book--you way over use the term non sequitur.

I can  transcend and I don't get it wrong.   I just don't transcend
through TM.  Don't judge my experience. I don't judge yours.  Others
transcend through prayer.  Don't judge their experience as wrong.

  I wasn't going to talk to you about religion
  and you weren't going to talk to me about religion.
  Does this make us both liars?

 See my previous post. I meant to say something
 different. You did say you were going to start
 ignoring my posts again, though, so this does
 make you a liar.

Interesting. I was hoping you would answer this off the cuff question. 
It actually does not make me a liar because I meant it when I said it. 
I just changed my mind for the evening..  This helps me know why you
misuse the word liar so often.  Judy: It isn't a lie when you change
your mind.

 From another post of yours:

  Judy, Vaj did not say one dishonest thing here.

 Yes, he did. I cut most of it out, so you aren't
 seeing it all in the post of mine you're responding
 to. But it doesn't apply to just that post by any
 means. This was only one of many examples.

  He asked if you said
  something, and if you had that position, you would
  be a TB.

 Yeah, that isn't what TB means around here. He
 knows I'm not a TB.

 Regardless of honesty or lack of same, would you
 call what he said mean? (Just, you know, out of
 curiosity. Go back to his original post for the
 full nine yards.)

 Sorry I won't be able to continue this delightful
 discussion with you, but I'm almost out of posts
 for the week (and I won't be able to post again
 until Sunday, if then, because I'm going out of
 town and will have limited access to a computer).

This conversation is not delightful to me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[authfriend]

OK, I'm blowing my last post for the week on Ruth
because she's condescended to speak to me--several
times, in fact.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
wrote:
snip
[quoting MMY:]
 This meditation is no threat to the authority of
 priests or ministers. It is something which belongs to
 their religions but which has been forgotten for many
 centuries.

 Not a lot of respect for religion here
   
Not for religion that isn't supported by a
practice of regular transcending. Obviously
he isn't saying one should reject religion.
  
   Obviously.  But not just transcending.  TM brand
   transcending.
 
  Effective, systematic regular transcending. He
  considered TM to be the only such practice available,
  but he said if there were others, they'd also be
  called transcendental meditation. With regard to
  ancient times, he was obviously using TM in the
  generic sense.
 
 Yup, TM brand meditation.  As I said above.

Nope, effective, systematic regular transcending,
as I said above.

 I do think that it is bullshit that TM belonged
 to the religions but was forgotten for centuries.
   
The important point is that religions developed
from experiences of transcendence; they're the
external manifestations of internal experience.
The external manifestation doesn't do you nearly
as much good by itself as when you have the inner
experience of which it's the manifestation.
  
   The important point is that he is saying religions
   have it wrong and must incorporate TM brand meditation
   to have it right.
 
  No, the important point is that religions developed
  from experiences of transcendence; they're the
  external manifestations of internal experience. The
  external manifestation doesn't do you nearly as much
  good by itself as when you have the inner experience
  of which it's the manifestation.
 
 You are repeating yourself.

Yup, verbatim. That's what I tend to do when people
simply issue a flat contradiction without advancing
the discussion any.

  The important point is that whatever path
 the religion prescribes as the way to god is not
 good enough, you have to have TM.

You have to have regular transcendence, because
religions (as I said) developed from the experience
of transcendence. Without the transcendence, 
they're just the shell.

  Who suddenly remembered and why should
 we take their word for it?  If TM was so great,
 why was it forgotten?
   
Too easy to get the practice of regular
transcending wrong.
  
   Really?  How do you know that?
 
  Lots of residence courses listening to people
  describe what they're doing when they think they're
  doing TM, among other things. Also, if you really
  look closely at the instructions for TM, it becomes
  self-evident how exceptionally delicate it is to
  teach.
 
 Oh, I don't think so.  I think you are fooling
 yourself.  I am sure I could teach TM.

Of course you could, if you took TM teacher training.

You'd be very unlikely to teach it *successfully*
without that training, though; and even with the
training there would be people who didn't get it.
It's not just the skill of the teacher or how good
the instruction itself is; it's the very nature of
the practice that makes it so elusive.

 Anyone good at putting someone in a suggestible
 state could teach TM.

Naah, has nothing to do with suggestibility.

 But the more the teacher believed, probably the better.
 
   I transcend, I know I transcend.  But not from TM.
 
  Non sequitur.
 
 No it is not.   What I said logically followed
 the prior statements. Check your logic book--you
 way over use the term non sequitur.

Lots of people transcend who never heard of TM.
What does that have to do with the difficulty of
teaching people how to transcend systematically and
regularly?

 I can  transcend and I don't get it wrong.   I
 just don't transcend through TM.  Don't judge my
 experience.

I don't judge your experience either way, Ruth. I
don't know whether what you call transcending is
what I call transcending. How could I? You don't
know either.

 I don't judge yours.  Others
 transcend through prayer.  Don't judge their
 experience as wrong.

People transcend all kinds of different ways. I'm
not judging their experience. I'm talking about
the problem of teaching a systematic practice that
produces regular transcendence.

   I wasn't going to talk to you about religion
   and you weren't going to talk to me about religion.
   Does this make us both liars?
 
  See my previous post. I meant to say something
  different. You did say you were going to start
  ignoring my posts again, though, so this does
  make you a liar.
 
 Interesting. I was hoping you would answer this off
 the cuff question. It actually does not make me a
 liar 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
 [quoting MMY:]
  This meditation is no threat to the authority of
  priests or ministers. It is something which belongs to
  their religions but which has been forgotten for many
  centuries. 
  
  Not a lot of respect for religion here
 
 Not for religion that isn't supported by a
 practice of regular transcending. Obviously
 he isn't saying one should reject religion.
 
  I do think that it is bullshit that TM belonged
  to the religions but was forgotten for centuries.

the reliable, mechanical ability to transcend was lost.
 
 The important point is that religions developed
 from experiences of transcendence; they're the
 external manifestations of internal experience.

yep-- it was as simple as people losing over time the experience of 
transcending, and instead mimicking and adopting the actions and 
words of spiritual leaders. then codifying these words and actions. 
presto- a religion! ...similar to moodmaking. 

 The external manifestation doesn't do you nearly
 as much good by itself 

doesn't do jack- an insignificant effect by itself.

 as when you have the inner experience of which it's the
 manifestation.

  Who suddenly remembered 

it doesn't really matter who remembered it-- no more so than it was 
edison who invented the lightbulb; the light works, regardless of 
who invented (remembered) it.

  and why should we take their word for it?

we absolutely should not. i only keep meditating because i found 
value in my last meditation. one meditation at a time.  

If TM was so great,
  why was it forgotten?
 
 Too easy to get the practice of regular
 transcending wrong.
 
  Is this back to the Hindu fundamentalist belief
  that their path is the path and the rest is just
  stuff for the relative world, mostly irrelevant?
 
 No.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[raunchydog]

Does anyone remember MMY saying that religion without transcendence is
like the banana skin without the banana? He used a simple metaphor to
explain the value of TM in bringing fulfillment all religions. The
experience of transcending restores the original intention of
religion, which is to give a direct experience of transcending by
whatever means necessary: prayer, rosary, chanting, dancing, singing
or climbing a mountain on your knees, whatever floats your boat.  MMY
taught that since TM was simple, natural and effortless, it could
complement any religious practice and you wouldn't have to bloody your
knees doing it. Works for me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[enlightened_dawn11]

i just don't know what we would do without your wisdom on MMY, vaj. 

anyway, love your guru or hate your guru (like someone said here 
recently), i am sure MMY appreciates all of the attention you 
regularly give him.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

-snip-
 Before MMY came to the forefront there was already a large movement 
to  
 connect physics to the Vedas and mantra yoga, etc.
 
 So don't make the mistake of not seeing MMY as a right-wing  
 fundamentalist Hindu, he clearly was and this is easily 
demonstrated  
 if one is willing to take the time and look into it. I highly  
 recommend looking into the works of Meera Nanada, a Hindu 
rationalist,  
 on Vedic Science
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[yifuxero]

--Right. If there were a Garden of Eden for the truth, Vaj would be 
on the wrong side of the garden.  The dude he mentions (Meera Nanda 
is the guys's name)...is an idiot.
 Here's what the swaveda website owner says about him:

In this article cluttered with biased attacks on Hindutva, the author
[the jerk Vaj admires] also makes sweeping statements as follows: In 
reality, everything we know about the workings of nature through the 
methods of modern science radically disconfirms the presence of any 
morally significant gunas, or shakti, or any other form of 
consciousness in nature, as taught by the Vedic cosmology which 
treats nature as a manifestation of divine consciousness. Far from 
there being `no conflict' between science and Hinduism, a scientific 
understanding of nature completely and radically negates the `eternal 
laws' of Hindu dharma which teach an identity between spirit and 
matter. 





- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... 
wrote:

 i just don't know what we would do without your wisdom on MMY, vaj. 
 
 anyway, love your guru or hate your guru (like someone said here 
 recently), i am sure MMY appreciates all of the attention you 
 regularly give him.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
 -snip-
  Before MMY came to the forefront there was already a large 
movement 
 to  
  connect physics to the Vedas and mantra yoga, etc.
  
  So don't make the mistake of not seeing MMY as a right-wing  
  fundamentalist Hindu, he clearly was and this is easily 
 demonstrated  
  if one is willing to take the time and look into it. I highly  
  recommend looking into the works of Meera Nanada, a Hindu 
 rationalist,  
  on Vedic Science
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[curtisdeltablues]

The
 experience of transcending restores the original intention of
 religion, which is to give a direct experience of transcending by
 whatever means necessary: prayer, rosary, chanting, dancing, singing
 or climbing a mountain on your knees, whatever floats your boat. 

I think the point is that this claim about restoring what was the
original intention of religion is an expression of Maharishi's
grandiosity that he would know such a thing.  It is coming from a
Hindu perspective on what religion is all about.

It has nothing to do with most versions of Christianity.  It might
apply to certain groups of mystical Christianity which might value
such experiences.  But even then it would not be outside the
acceptance of Christ as a redeemer and his role in opening the
possibility for eternal life as their original intention of religion
. Even the reclusive Christian monks I hung out with did not buy into
Maharishi's perspective what the original intention of religion is,
or that he had somehow, out of all the other religions people,
discovered it.

Works for me.

I can see that and more power to ya.  But not all religious people
believe that Maharishi held such a lofty position of insight about
their religions. He was not a ecumenical kind of guy.  He was more of
a Triumphalist.  



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:

 Does anyone remember MMY saying that religion without transcendence is
 like the banana skin without the banana? He used a simple metaphor to
 explain the value of TM in bringing fulfillment all religions. The
 experience of transcending restores the original intention of
 religion, which is to give a direct experience of transcending by
 whatever means necessary: prayer, rosary, chanting, dancing, singing
 or climbing a mountain on your knees, whatever floats your boat.  MMY
 taught that since TM was simple, natural and effortless, it could
 complement any religious practice and you wouldn't have to bloody your
 knees doing it. Works for me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
 
  Well, tell that to my totally atheistic son, who learned when 
  he was much younger and still rolls his eyes at my obsession 
  with the Maharishi Effect, etc,
  and still does his program 2x a day. He's missed perhaps 2-3 
  times in the past decade and comments that he finds it 
  uncomfortable to miss.
 
 That's an interesting case! Most people seem to need some kind of
 belief system to keep up a regular practice of any kind. Would you say
 that it is *purely* that he enjoys it? Or is his motivation that he
 feels that it is good for his health or something?


Health, but that is MY primary motivator as well. I have, on occasion,
for years at a time, bought into the beief system, but given my body's 
dysfunctional nervous system, my primary use for TM is self-medication.


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:
[...]
 
 There are all sorts of levels of belief, and I am sure that we all
 agree on that.  And doesn't the true believer maintain no belief is
 required if you just do it?
 
 Anyway, at my level of belief--simple mediation is a relaxation
 technique--my theory is that it is uncomfortable for him to quit
 because he has made a strong habit out of meditating.  If he did quit
 odds are in a month he wouldn't miss it.  Not that I am saying he
 should quit.  


Not that he would, even if you did. 
 
 So, you have a son?  Me too.  Fun, huh.  :)


It's definitely interesting.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 The
  experience of transcending restores the original intention of
  religion, which is to give a direct experience of transcending by
  whatever means necessary: prayer, rosary, chanting, dancing, singing
  or climbing a mountain on your knees, whatever floats your boat. 
 
 I think the point is that this claim about restoring what was the
 original intention of religion is an expression of Maharishi's
 grandiosity that he would know such a thing.  It is coming from a
 Hindu perspective on what religion is all about.
 It has nothing to do with most versions of Christianity.  It might
 apply to certain groups of mystical Christianity which might value
 such experiences.  But even then it would not be outside the
 acceptance of Christ as a redeemer and his role in opening the
 possibility for eternal life as their original intention of religion
 . Even the reclusive Christian monks I hung out with did not buy into
 Maharishi's perspective what the original intention of religion is,
 or that he had somehow, out of all the other religions people,
 discovered it.

If one of your monk friends went to church and transcended for 20
minutes, and they assigned no theological or mystical value to it, it
would not interfere with their belief in Christ as their redeemer or
possibility of eternal life.  A Christian paradigm works for them
whether or not they accept a TM paradigm.

I'll drag out the old SCI saw and submit that it can offer a paradigm
for understanding one's experience of transcendence as well as a
satisfactory interpretation of Christian theology, where as
Christianity offers a theology and may or may not offer an experience
of transcendence. 

Although some believe Jesus never existed, Christians claim him as
their founder. My personal belief is that he existed, had mystical
experiences of transcendence, taught the whole banana, and what
remains of his teaching is mostly banana skin. The original intention
was BANANA. 

 Works for me.
 
 I can see that and more power to ya.  But not all religious people
 believe that Maharishi held such a lofty position of insight about
 their religions. He was not a ecumenical kind of guy.  He was more of
 a Triumphalist.  

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of MMY. Even if they think he's a
fraud, TM still works in that it can deliver the ability to transcend
effortlessly. Practice or believe anything you want and call it your
religion. Hell, worship Beelzebub and do TM, it doesn't matter, it works.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  Does anyone remember MMY saying that religion without transcendence is
  like the banana skin without the banana? He used a simple metaphor to
  explain the value of TM in bringing fulfillment all religions. The
  experience of transcending restores the original intention of
  religion, which is to give a direct experience of transcending by
  whatever means necessary: prayer, rosary, chanting, dancing, singing
  or climbing a mountain on your knees, whatever floats your boat.  MMY
  taught that since TM was simple, natural and effortless, it could
  complement any religious practice and you wouldn't have to bloody your
  knees doing it. Works for me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote:

 -Original Message-
 From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] 
 Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 2:06 PM
 To: David Orme-Johnson
 Subject: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders
 
 Dear Colleagues,

The fact that the TM program has been derived from an ancient
tradition in India and revived by a man revered there with a spiritual
title, of course should have no bearing on the validity of the use of
the TM program. The TM program is not Hinduism, therefore, any more
than  Einstein's theory of relativity is Jewish, or Genetic theory,
conceived of by  Monk Gregor Mendel is considered to be Christian. The
practice of the program involves no religious beliefs but is a
mechanical and effortless technique for experiencing increasingly
refined or restful levels of mental and physiological activity enjoyed
by individuals of all religious (and non-religious) backgrounds.

I think this observation is preposterous, as if TM existed in a vacuum!