Good raps, blusc0ut. I'll riff on the things it brought up for me -- not that my musings are what you had in mind, just that what you wrote got me to thinking about them. And -- as always -- these are just musings, theories, me trying in retrospect to make sense of something that probably doesn't make any. They are NOT a declaration of Truth or claim that this is what was going on.
Basically, I've always wondered how much of the reclusive side of the TMO was a product of the social mindset of the organization, and how much was a product of the TM and TM- sidhi techniques themselves. I think a case can be made for either one, or both. The "fear of contact with the real world" thang can be seen (at least by me) as an extension of the "Treat the meditators like children who can't handle themselves out in the real world" mindset established in the first TM residence courses. Participants were actually for- bidden to "leave the course" and go into town, or to do work-related things, or do much of anything "real." And make no mistake about it, this instruction was *never* for the benefit of the participants. When I worked at the Regional Office, I got to see the lists of instructions for residence course leaders sent from Seelisberg; they stated in clear terms that the reason we were to keep people from leaving courses was to prevent any possible embarrassment to the TMO. We were to make sure they didn't wander into some town and, being totally spaced-out, do something that would reflect badly on TM and the TMO. This "treat them like children" mindset was naturally extended to longer courses when they began to appear, and to the reclusive butt-bouncing communities or courses when they appeared. On the other hand, I can see that a lot of this "fear of the real world" comes from TM and the TM-sidhis itself. I have participated in meditation retreats from other traditions in which we were meditating 12 or more hours a day and there was no such suggestion to "not go into town." Because there was no need for such a suggestion; no one was ever "spaced out." The meditation worked as meditation was *supposed* to work, and created increased clarity and the ability to cope in the participants. So if something came up that required their attention in the real world, they were not only able to handle it, they (we) tended to do so more efficiently, and with no trace of spaced- out-ed-ness, only increased clarity of mind. On another level, I was exposed in the Rama trip to a very different model for what spiritual attainment meant. Everything in that org was presented in terms of "Does it fly in the real world," or "Does it have any value in the real world." There was never any sense of anyone having a "day job," as opposed to their spiritual life. Our jobs *were* our spiritual lives, and an integral part of our sadhana. We were taught to use them as an opportunity to focus and excel, and taught that excellence in one's career was FAR more an indication of "spiritual progress" than any internal, subjective experience. Compare and contrast to the TMO, in which many people didn't even *have* careers. Many of them followed the "monk model" and went all Purusha or Mother Divine, begging others for money so they never even *had* to work. Instead they got to focus on the subjective side of their lives, which was then *never tested* by exposing it to the real world. One of the reasons I bailed from the TMO in the first place was that I had begun to notice that "good experiences" seemed to be linked to "being on a course." Leave the course, and these experiences went away. This did not strike me as a balanced or valid approach to spiritual experience; if it can't persist in the midst of the busy marketplace, and can only exist in some rarefied retreat setting, it's not real...it's as artificial as the retreat or monastery concept itself. Suffice it to say I'm not a fan of the recluse approach to spiritual development. I don't feel that ANY subjective experience is valid or of lasting value unless it can be had while working in and interfacing with the real world. I don't think Maharishi ever thought this way, which is natural if you think about it because *he* never really interfaced with the real world. From Day One he was treated like the monk he was, and other people both paid for his life and sheltered him from the real world 24/7. I don't think that he ever had much respect for "career" or for actual accomplishment out in the world because he never experienced those things. He was a dreamer, and his view of the world was IMO largely a dream, rarely based on reality. I think that a *balanced* spiritual life is one in which everyone pays their own way (by working at some job that allows them to do so), and has no problem interfacing gracefully and *well* (meaning successfully) with the world around them, and with people who aren't a part of the same spiritual path. Fear of those people or of the real world -- and a reluctance to interface with them -- strikes me as what it really is: fear. And when this fear of the real world is glorified, and the value of subjective experience with no verification in the real world is glorified -- for decades -- I don't see this as providing a balanced path towards integrated spiritual development. But that may just be me... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Good post, Buck. I had similar thoughts about this paper, > > but you expressed them better than I could have. > > > > The author does seem to realize that the TMO doesn't > > quite fit the model he describes, especially regarding > > the TM-Sidhis. I think you nailed the problem: he > > considers the program's goals "supernatural," which > > is appropriate from his perspective, but as far as he's > > concerned that means wholly imaginary. > > And I would agree with that. We were quite surprised when the whole siddhi > thing came up, with constant 'news' from various courses about the latest > attainments. I didn't think that supernatural feats was really I was > aspiring, but we were told, in golden brochures, that enlighetnment is not > complete without attainment of the siddhis. I still remember the first > brochure I saw, it was called 'enlightenment and the siddhis' (still written > with two dd), and actually full of the most phantastic and inspiring > experience reports. > > Later on posters where printed, saying: Become a Sidha, a Superman. > Ads saying: Breakthru in human potential, photos showing people seemingly > flying, underneath: First stage of flying. > > The supernatural was heavily used as advertisment! > > It is also clear that, after those supernatural feats didn't really turn out > to be true, that most people settled for the experiences they had, which > could be quite exhilerating and beautiful, I agree. But at the time, rumors > were going around, that Maharishi would soon fly over LLake Lucern, at a > press conference, and this would be the great breakthrough for the movement. > This certainly had christian undertones, of Jesus walking on water. > > I am not denying that we stayed in for the daily experiences, after the first > years of constant expectations. But why wre these expectations raised at all, > why the whole show? > > > > So he misses, as you say, the role of subjective > > experience; > > The subjective experience is certainly a phase of the movement mentioned in > the article, as 'mystic phase' and 'cosmic consciousness phase'. Thats all > about subjective experiences, agreed? > > If the emphasis shifts, it doesn't mean that these aspects are completely > superseded, it just means that the emphasis changes. Maybe for you, the whole > thing is about your personal, subjective experiences, and most people who > start Siddhis today, probably don't have the same expectations, we had back > then. You have accomotated yourselves with those experiences, and there is > nothing wrong about it. But don't forget, the very content, the meaning of > the siddhi sutras is about supernatural abilities. They are not meaningless > formulas. > > > and, I would add, of real-world benefits of > > the practice in daily life, regardless of whether > > practitioners ever manifest any full-blown siddhis. > > From your perspective that is certainly correct. You obviously never lived > in the movement, you never gave up a professional career to work full-time, > you had a professional career to start with. For those of us, to whom the > movement "happened" in their formative years, it is actually quite different. > We were missing a 'normal' life plan. We thought we are on the top of the > world, on the leading edge of our times, people would soon run to us to get > initiated. > > Also have in mind, that the article doesn't claim to address all aspects of a > spiritual movement, but rather focuses on the relationship of its members to > the outside world. The whole thing is about world rejection and world > affirmation. You'll probably agree with me, that the inner circle of the > movement is living in a world of its own, and even talk a language no one > else understands. They are completely alienated from the normal world. > > > If you read Hagelins invitation here: > > "This is a critical time and a tremendous > opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to > fall back from what we have accomplished so far. > We need to sustain and build upon what we have > created over these past four yearsand create > true and lasting invincibility for our nation and > peace for our world family." > > then you will agree with me, that the whole appeal is moralistic and there is > no mention of the word experience here. Experiences play a role, but are > mentioned as something secondary, while for you, it seems, it is the primary > motivation. > > IMO if you just go to the domes because of your own personal experiences, its > quite alright. What I don't believe is that there is any effect to society at > large, that moral arguments should be used at all, and the event is *used* to > control and sanction people. Then it is better to stay independed. Its > actually better to stay independed of a group. There is also the > psychological factor that you believe, you need a certain atmosphere to feel > good, or phrasing it negative, to stay away from a negative atmosphere, which > sort of extends to the rest of the world. (All not an issue to you, I know) > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > > http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/goal_displacement.htm > > > > > > Hi just stopping in briefly, > > > > > > This 1990's academic paper is certainly a way of discernment. > > > > > > This last year in Fairfield and the TM.movement was certainly about > > > vying over direction. TM orthodox 'Maharishi-said' types like Beavan > > > Morris and a group of administrative lieutenants around him like Brad > > > Myletts and such who are bound in their way to doctrine and then > > > progressive activist TM teachers like who are associated with David > > > Lynch's Foundation or Hagelin's institute for science and public policy. > > > And then there are the practitioners who have their own experience. This > > > later third group is often what these kinds of academic surveys do not > > > account for. The group with serious real spiritual experience who are > > > around because of that experience aside from the doctrine policies and > > > guidelines. > > > > > > A little different and becoming more forceful in modern times now in > > > surveying is the internet's ability to disseminate and examine experience > > > and then also the published science about the neurophysiology of > > > spiritual experience that sheds a light in its way on spiritual > > > experience. This older academic kind of discernment like in this paper > > > about spiritual groups tend to just remain stayed about doctrinal nuance > > > or governance differences of groups. They seem to miss the boat or get > > > outstripped by the experiential (may be shakti, for lack of a better > > > word) side. This thing of spiritual experience as a variable, you can > > > see they seem to hate or don't like to touch academically. It's like > > > they are scared. Of course there would be no academic points presenting > > > a paper about a subjective scale of woo-woo as the relative shakti (a > > > spiritual experience value) that does exist in groups, teachers or > > > practitioners. This aspect gets hard for academics to grope because it > > > gets out of their realm to discuss objectively and then get something > > > published for their career advancement. So where they stop is at the > > > threshold of rating the shakti of groups, teachings or teachers. > > > > > > I think the future is going to be particularly exciting about this real > > > aspect of relative spiritual exerience. > > > Rick Archer's Buddha at the Gas Pump (BATGAP) project of publishing > > > common people's spiritual experience on the internet is a brave way > > > towards blowing open a more academic door to better discernment of > > > spiritual groups. The science and people's experience now allowing it > > > more to be about the practitioners within the sociology of these > > > different groups. > > > > > > > > > > > > Got to go outside now: > > > Before enlightenment, chop wood , carry water, feed horses. > > > After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, feed horses. > > > > > > -Buck in FF . > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There doesn't appear to be anyone in the TMO leadership who can > > > > > re-assess what "protect the purity of the teaching" means, so they > > > > > must default to a fundamentalist view wrt all the rules and > > > > > regulations that were in place when Maharishi departed. Unfortunate. > > > > > > > > Very unfortunate, and very good analysis! > > > > > > > > One could redo, reformulate TM for the present time, but nobody seems > > > > to be able to do it. Nobody has the charisma and the guts. And thats > > > > clearly a missed opportunity. The 'purity of the teaching' argument > > > > will always be used for the status quo. Any religious movement in > > > > history could only survive, because it was able to adapt to the social > > > > situation of its times. The TM movement cannot survive without > > > > changing, But as it seems, as some of us believe, its death was > > > > intentional entirely, and planned by its leader. > > > > > > > > As somebody has pointed here out earlier, already in the 80's he wanted > > > > to make the movement look ridiculus and not be acceptable by any sane > > > > people. I simply think that Maharishi distrusted any of his potential > > > > successors, and just appointed the administrators of the dismantling > > > > process - the Rajas. So, don't blame them, they are just doing their > > > > job. Maharaj Adiraj Rajaram is just as inactive and invisible as > > > > anyone can be. No, the movement is just a one-generation trip. > > > > Maharishis 'for all generations to come' and his following grin should > > > > have alerted you! At present the movement is still there for those who > > > > are still in it, who still believe in it and see Maharishi as their > > > > master, and thats alright, and thats it. > > > > > > > > I think Maharishis attitude at the end must have been, like John > > > > Lennons, at the end of the Beatles: We have done it, give us a break, > > > > let the others be the clowns. Let there be the Nithyanandas, Sri Sri's, > > > > Kalkis etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is not much the Rajas can do <... > > > > > > > > > > > > No, there is lots the TM-Rajas could do to amend the situation with > > > > > > the gross dome numbers. > > > > > > It seems that currently they are rejecting 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4 > > > > > > applicants to the dome. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's got to be incredibly frustrating to the Settles and that > > > > > > progressive element of the TM-movement whom would like for good > > > > > > reasons to see large numbers of people meditating in the domes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As John Hagelin has said: > > > > > > "This is a critical time and a tremendous > > > > > > opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to > > > > > > fall back from what we have accomplished so far. > > > > > > We need to sustain and build upon what we have > > > > > > created over these past four yearsand create > > > > > > true and lasting invincibility for our nation and > > > > > > peace for our world family." > > > > > > Raja John Hagelin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <"Buck"> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The truth. The sweet truth. > > > > > > > > > > Let a TM-Raja, with or without their crown and robe, > > > > > > > > > > come forward here and defend themselves. In public. > > > > > > > > > > Let's look at the numbers. Any of the numbers. > > > > > > > > > > Theirs is a piss-pour job facilitating this. > > > > > > > > > > There is a truth and reality to their record thus > > > > > > > > > > far. That record certainly could be different as they > > > > > > > > > > would choose. > > > > > > > > > > JGD, > > > > > > > > > > -Buck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Buck, please enlighten me; what does the Rajas have to do > > > > > > > > > with the Dome-numbers ? It's the american meditating > > > > > > > > > community at large who are responsible for creating the ME > > > > > > > > > for the benefit of themselves, no ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the TM-Rajas facilitate it. They administrate it. > > > > > > > > Thus far they effectively have obstructed > > > > > > > > the numbers by an administration of who they are > > > > > > > > in character. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, it is a good and very pertinent question. > > > > > > > > Quite a lot has been written here about > > > > > > > > the character of the TM-Raja-ism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet, looking ahead to 2011; > > > > > > > > Do the TM-Rajas sense the ready and vehement vitriol > > > > > > > > that a public and the meditating community often can hold > > > > > > > > towards the TM movement? There seems a scathing skepticism out > > > > > > > > in the world about things TM. > > > > > > > > Is it undeserved? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TM community is large and diverse, a lot of us know each > > > > > > > > other from way back with memories that can run long. > > > > > > > > But look at the quick & cogent reaction of old meditators and > > > > > > > > in the larger community as one surveys around. Now when the > > > > > > > > the movement (TM-Rajas) does something, it is like the TM-Rajas > > > > > > > > are their > > > > > > > > own bad PR if they try anything with the TM community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I feel the community is not yet beyond reconciliation > > > > > > > > if the TM-Rajas would start behaving themselves anew. There is > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > evident standoffish-ness of meditators with TM that evidently > > > > > > > > seems to be related to the character > > > > > > > > of TM and theTM-Rajas. Clearly it is up to > > > > > > > > the TM-Rajas to change in this or evidently the Dome numbers > > > > > > > > will remain stuck and aground in their past. Given the > > > > > > > > situation, > > > > > > > > the TM-Rajas certainly can change and it is clearly up to the > > > > > > > > Rajas to facilitate more > > > > > > > > than it is up to the meditators to accommodate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Buck in FF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is not much the Rajas can do as long as some, including you > > > > > > > if I'm not mistaken, continue to visit so-called "saints" > > > > > > > The rules are there, follow them or stay out of the Domes. > > > > > > > Very simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's way more than that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > other, why would you mind if the whole "operation" is moved to > > > > > > > India ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > India is not Fairfield. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who knows how long rich people will sponsor the americans to > > > > > > > attend the Domes. The dollar goes further in India. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Domes would be nice indoor tennis facilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
