[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: In Barry's limited imagination, there's only *one* way to read the Laws of Nature--the Will of God, and that is as the Will of God. Natural Law is the Will of God, it's the same thing - Maharishi 2004
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... quoted: Professor Tony Nader, M.D., Ph.D. (who received his weight in gold in 1998 for his extraordinary scientific discoveries... Continuing the theme of pompous madness... a video of the stunt of Nader on the scale, followed by his coronation as king, is also up on the net: http://tinyurl.com/nader-gold-stunt Over the course of thirty minutes or so, you can watch the metamorphosis of Tony Nader into His Majesty Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, complete with bagpipes thrown into the mix. There is no way that the idea of TM in schools can be taken seriously when the antics of these lunatics who ultimately run the TMO can be easily viewed. Heck, you can even download the video onto an iPod and pass it around at school board meetings wherever this silly notion of allowing people sympathetic to this madness anywhere near schools is introduced!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
On Apr 19, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Mike Doughney wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... quoted: Professor Tony Nader, M.D., Ph.D. (who received his weight in gold in 1998 for his extraordinary scientific discoveries... Continuing the theme of pompous madness... a video of the stunt of Nader on the scale, followed by his coronation as king, is also up on the net:http://tinyurl.com/nader-gold-stunt Over the course of thirty minutes or so, you can watch the metamorphosis of Tony Nader into His Majesty Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, complete with bagpipes thrown into the mix. There is no way that the idea of TM in schools can be taken seriously when the antics of these lunatics who ultimately run the TMO can be easily viewed. Heck, you can even download the video onto an iPod and pass it around at school board meetings wherever this silly notion of allowing people sympathetic to this madness anywhere near schools is introduced! Holy shit, just when you think you've seen it all! Thanks for posting this insanity, Mike--the scale is an absolute hoot. Has Nader given up all pretense of sanity himself? And how anybody can maintain that Bevan is anything but a flaming fag after hearing him here is beyond me. And poor MMY looked barely awake, that was pretty tough to watch. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: From the Letter to Education Ministries by Bevan Morris, May 9th 2003, still found at: http://www.mgcwp.org/parliamentofworldpeace/letter_Education.htm (Excerpts only, because Bevan is nothing if not pompous and long-winded, emphasis mine.) Note the somewhat different language than that being used in the current attempt to sell TM in schools. Note the *equivalence* that is being drawn between two flowery Maharishi euphemisms below and what they really mean both to Bevan and to Maharishi. One of the biggest problems the TM critics here have is a seriously limited imagination, by which I mean an inability to think outside the box of their own preconceptions. (At the same time, what imagination they do have tends to be hyperactive within the context of those preconceptions.) The above from Barry's post is an example. He notes the equivalence drawn between Laws of Nature and Will of God and concludes that this means the latter is what is really meant and that the former is just a euphemism. It never occurs to him to consider whether it might be the *latter* that's a euphemism for the *former*, or whether both terms really *are* equivalent, referring to the same abstract dynamic using the terms of different perspectives, one religious and one not. In Barry's limited imagination, there's only *one* way to read the Laws of Nature--the Will of God, and that is as the Will of God. Then, please explain to me why TM, thus presented, is not essentially a religious teaching. Given the conclusion I just outlined, we find the further limitation of the inability to conceive of any reference to God as being independent of the teaching of a particular religion: Any teaching that mentions God must be the teaching of *a religion*, as if it were impossible for anyone to believe in the existence of something they call God without being a practitioner of a particular religion. I'm no fan of Bevan, but it seems to me what he's trying to do in the quoted material is to address people who hold a wide range of beliefs and world- views, from atheists to the devout practitioners of a specific religion, in terms that will resonate with all of them. I don't think it's a very successful attempt, because most people who would resonate to the term Laws of Nature as referring to the controlling authority of life on earth (i.e., those who are not religious) don't think of those laws as encompassing the everyday details of human behavior. They understand Laws to mean the known physical laws-- of gravity, of thermodynamics, etc. Plus which, there has always been a logical inconsistency in MMY's teaching about the Laws of Nature (or the Will of God) as the controlling authority with regard to human behavior. If it's possible to make mistakes, defined as acting contrary to the Laws of Nature (or the Will of God), then those laws or that will cannot be said to be the controlling authority. But at this point we begin to get into very complicated philosophical issues, which obviously Bevan can't begin to address in this piece of promotional material (and which aren't within Barry's intellectual understanding anyway). Furthermore, please explain to me why it is not a *fundamentalist* religious teaching, given the highlighted first phrase below, which implies that the writer believes that it is the *only* way to live in accord with the will of God. As noted, it's not at all clear, except to those of limited imagination, that what Bevan describes *is* a religious teaching. It could be understood either way. As to whether it's fundamentalist in the more generic sense--specifically, whether Bevan is saying practice of TM is the only way a person can live in accord with the Laws of Nature or the Will of God --that isn't clear either. What Bevan is saying that *is* fundamentalist is that TM is the only *practice for students* that can produce the experience of Transcendental Consciousness to the degree that total brain functioning is awakened. Left unclear is whether (a) other practices not suitable for students might awaken total brain function, and (b) whether total brain function might awaken spontaneously (i.e., without a specific practice) in some people (including students). Given that neither Bevan or MMY would be likely to maintain that nobody who didn't practice TM as a student has ever awakened total brain function, it makes sense to assume those possibilities aren't being ruled out. Another assumption that could be classed as fundamentalist is that awakening total brain function ensures life in accord with the Laws of Nature or the Will of God. Boiled down, what Bevan is saying is that if you want students not to make mistakes and create problems for themselves and their government, the only way to *ensure* this is to have them practice TM. That may well be a fundamentalist belief, in the sense I outined above, but it isn't *in
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
He screams flamer, the wife and I agree. - Original Message - From: Sal Sunshine To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools On Apr 19, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Mike Doughney wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... quoted: Professor Tony Nader, M.D., Ph.D. (who received his weight in gold in 1998 for his extraordinary scientific discoveries... Continuing the theme of pompous madness... a video of the stunt of Nader on the scale, followed by his coronation as king, is also up on the net:http://tinyurl.com/nader-gold-stunt Over the course of thirty minutes or so, you can watch the metamorphosis of Tony Nader into His Majesty Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, complete with bagpipes thrown into the mix. There is no way that the idea of TM in schools can be taken seriously when the antics of these lunatics who ultimately run the TMO can be easily viewed. Heck, you can even download the video onto an iPod and pass it around at school board meetings wherever this silly notion of allowing people sympathetic to this madness anywhere near schools is introduced! Holy shit, just when you think you've seen it all! Thanks for posting this insanity, Mike--the scale is an absolute hoot. Has Nader given up all pretense of sanity himself? And how anybody can maintain that Bevan is anything but a flaming fag after hearing him here is beyond me. And poor MMY looked barely awake, that was pretty tough to watch. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
Sal Sunshine wrote: And how anybody can maintain that Bevan is anything but a flaming fag after hearing him here is beyond me... Well, I always suspected that Sal was a homophobe, but what in the world would being 'gay' have to do with teaching TM in schools? From what I've read, lots of teachers are gay. I mean, why is it that the TMO always seems to be so anti-gay? Or, is it true that Sal was never a part of the TMO, she's just a natural homophobe? It's not even rational - go figure. Isn't it illegal to call someone a 'fag'? It's certainly unethical. Or, does Sal have some insider information that we don't know about? Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality, homosexuals,or individuals perceived as homosexual. Homophobia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobe
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
Kirk wrote: He screams flamer, the wife and I agree. So, you and your wife are homophobes - I'm surprised. There must be thousands of gay people in NOLA and they all like to eat in restaurants. Why are so many TMers anti-gay, Kirk? Why are you so scared?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: From the Letter to Education Ministries by Bevan Morris, May 9th 2003, still found at: http://www.mgcwp.org/parliamentofworldpeace/letter_Education.htm (Excerpts only, because Bevan is nothing if not pompous and long-winded, emphasis mine.) I'm gunna start with the question of why we should trust that this organization has got the solution to all of life's biggest problems when they can't even seem to master the cell padding functions when they built their tables in their Web page. It looks like something from the first exercise in Build Your Own Website, Yes You Can, elementary school edition! (For non Web geeks, when was the last time you saw text that was shoved that close to the border between the white and try'n to be Gold yellow, colored border of the page.) Note the somewhat different language than that being used in the current attempt to sell TM in schools. Note the *equivalence* that is being drawn between two flowery Maharishi euphemisms below and what they really mean both to Bevan and to Maharishi. One of the biggest problems the TM critics here have is a seriously limited imagination, by which I mean an inability to think outside the box of their own preconceptions. (At the same time, what imagination they do have tends to be hyperactive within the context of those preconceptions.) I'm gunna translate this as If you don's see it my way, you are stupid. (Feel free to object.} Got a little K is Structured in C vibe. Personally I don't think either side of this question is lacking in imagination. Especially since some of the most active critics here taught the perspective you are advocating for years. The questions are not black and white and not simple, so we both have a lot of room for personal choice in how to view it. What I am advocating is that the public be given the respect of giving them enough information so they can make their own choice. If they want to use the version of imagination you are proposing and see the puja as non religious, let 'em. But let's not withhold the information they need to make their own best choice. The above from Barry's post is an example. He notes the equivalence drawn between Laws of Nature and Will of God and concludes that this means the latter is what is really meant and that the former is just a euphemism. This is an interesting point. Let's see where it leads. It never occurs to him to consider whether it might be the *latter* that's a euphemism for the *former*, The reason this is not likely is that Maharishi first taught TM using more explicitly spiritual terms. So by the timeline this is not an option. or whether both terms really *are* equivalent, referring to the same abstract dynamic using the terms of different perspectives, one religious and one not. This is one of the options for people to CHOOSE. It requires a certain amount of detachment from most religions as the Cistertian meditating monks found out for themselves. In their opinion is ends up in Hindu triumphalism if you get into the teaching far enough. (The choice to view this as Vedic duly noted.) In Barry's limited imagination, there's only *one* way to read the Laws of Nature--the Will of God, and that is as the Will of God. I believe you are suggesting that your way is also an only way Judy. Your comment about people not seeing it that way as lacking in imagination reveals that you view your POV as the RIGHT right way. But it disregards the fact that I have seen it your way for years and now on further reflection (and fantastic development in my powers of imagination) I see it differently. I now choose to believe that Maharishi was pushing his religious agenda by playing a shell game with terms. I offer as proof of that the religious use of pujas to Hindu Gods and Goddesses in TM facilities. You need more than just an active imagination to not see them as specifically religious since these ceremonies are historically post Vedic. Then, please explain to me why TM, thus presented, is not essentially a religious teaching. Given the conclusion I just outlined, we find the further limitation of the inability to conceive of any reference to God as being independent of the teaching of a particular religion: The Science of Being spells out the Hindu version of this God. It is not ecumenical. Christians do not view God as having an personal and impersonal aspect. So the only way you can make this case if for people who haven't gotten far enough to discover that this is not true in the TM teaching. The following quote is not compatible with Christianity: Yatinam Brahma Bhavati Sarathih For those established in self-referral consciousness, the totality of Natural Law (the administrator of the universe) spontaneously carries
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
You're right Richard. I am sorry to Bevan for disrespectibg him. - Original Message - From: Richard J. Williams willy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 10:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools Kirk wrote: He screams flamer, the wife and I agree. So, you and your wife are homophobes - I'm surprised. There must be thousands of gay people in NOLA and they all like to eat in restaurants. Why are so many TMers anti-gay, Kirk? Why are you so scared? To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
Kirk wrote: You're right Richard. I am sorry to Bevan for disrespectibg him. Well, I didn't really think you were a homophobe, like Sal apparently is. Why do you suppose the other informants don't speak up when they read such outrageous accusations? Curtis said he opposed the caste system, but he didn't say anything when one rascal called American citizens 'Meskins', so, I guess Curtis really does approve of segregation according to birth circumstances - 'caste'. Why do you suppose that Curtis bashed the Marshy over the caste system but not the FFL informants? According to Judy, silence indicates agreement. He screams flamer, the wife and I agree. So, you and your wife are homophobes - I'm surprised. There must be thousands of gay people in NOLA and they all like to eat in restaurants. Why are so many TMers anti-gay, Kirk? Why are you so scared?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willy...@... wrote: Aren't you the little busy body dictating what we should pay attention to and respond to here Richard? According to Judy, silence indicates agreement. According to me, silence indicates silence. Kirk wrote: You're right Richard. I am sorry to Bevan for disrespectibg him. Well, I didn't really think you were a homophobe, like Sal apparently is. Why do you suppose the other informants don't speak up when they read such outrageous accusations? Curtis said he opposed the caste system, but he didn't say anything when one rascal called American citizens 'Meskins', so, I guess Curtis really does approve of segregation according to birth circumstances - 'caste'. Why do you suppose that Curtis bashed the Marshy over the caste system but not the FFL informants? According to Judy, silence indicates agreement. He screams flamer, the wife and I agree. So, you and your wife are homophobes - I'm surprised. There must be thousands of gay people in NOLA and they all like to eat in restaurants. Why are so many TMers anti-gay, Kirk? Why are you so scared?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
Curtis wrote: Aren't you the little busy body dictating what we should pay attention to and respond to here Richard? You're so defensive these days, Curtis. According to Judy, silence indicates agreement. According to me, silence indicates silence. According to Judy, silence indicates agreement. You didn't object to the term 'fag', or 'Meskin', so I assumed that you agreed with the homophobes and the prejudiced. Why didn't you object, Curtis? That's all I want to know. You promoted TM as a religion for years for the TMO and you so much as said that you were silent when the TMO persecuted the gays in the movement. You slammed the Marshy because you thought he supported the caste system. Yet, you were silent when Sal called Bevan a 'fag'; you were silent when the FFL rascal called U.S. citizens 'Meskins' based on birth circumstances. Why didn't you object? You know it was wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willy...@... wrote: Curtis wrote: Aren't you the little busy body dictating what we should pay attention to and respond to here Richard? You're so defensive these days, Curtis. Compared to what imaginary standard Richard? And you'll no doubt miss the irony that you are castigating me for NOT standing up to things I don't agree with posted here, in the rest of your post. According to Judy, silence indicates agreement. According to me, silence indicates silence. According to Judy, silence indicates agreement. You didn't object to the term 'fag', or 'Meskin', so I assumed that you agreed with the homophobes and the prejudiced. Why didn't you object, Curtis? You are promoting a ridiculous standard that is probably out of context from Judy. We have 50 a week. We pick what is important to us. I define my silence as being silence, I am not bound by anyone else's definitions or value system about what is important. But I will be happy to assume that anytime you do not explicitly object to any point I am making, you are agreeing with me. I'll have fun with this one so thanks for that Richard. That's all I want to know. You promoted TM as a religion for years for the TMO and you so much as said that you were silent when the TMO persecuted the gays in the movement. As you trollishly ignore what I have posted before (which I assumed were agreeing with due to your silence), I never was asked to implement such a policy and had NOTHING to do with what they were up to at MIU. You slammed the Marshy because you thought he supported the caste system. I didn't think it, he explicitly states it. Yet, you were silent when Sal called Bevan a 'fag' Bevan ISN'T a fag? This is the first time I am hearing this. ; you were silent when the FFL rascal called U.S. citizens 'Meskins' I don't know what that word means, please tell me so I can feel self-righteously offended. based on birth circumstances. You mean scissarian verses natural? I do have an opinion on this. scissarian born children should NOT be discriminated against for their lifelong habit of wanting to leave a room by the window rather than the door. Why didn't you object? You know it was wrong. Grow up you little busy body. You are trying to shame me for knowing less in my 20's than I know now, and being less powerful in my ability to deal with the powers that be. If you want to enter a time machine to lecture me when I was in the movement go for it. The current me is not interested in what you think of the past me.(or the current me for that matter.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
...have to agree with Barry here. And his highlighted (bolded) phrases go right to the point. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: From the Letter to Education Ministries by Bevan Morris, May 9th 2003, still found at: http://www.mgcwp.org/parliamentofworldpeace/letter_Education.htm (Excerpts only, because Bevan is nothing if not pompous and long-winded, emphasis mine.) Note the somewhat different language than that being used in the current attempt to sell TM in schools. Note the *equivalence* that is being drawn between two flowery Maharishi euphemisms below and what they really mean both to Bevan and to Maharishi. Then, please explain to me why TM, thus presented, is not essentially a religious teaching. Furthermore, please explain to me why it is not a *fundamentalist* religious teaching, given the highlighted first phrase below, which implies that the writer believes that it is the *only* way to live in accord with the will of God. I'll wait... *There is only one way* that has been found to develop the holistic functioning of the brain of every studentto provide them the experience of the most silent, peaceful level of their own consciousnessTranscendental Consciousness. This experience alone has been found by scientific research to awaken total brain functioning, leading to measurable improvements in creativity, intelligence, academic performance, health, and to the experience of higher states of consciousness where students are naturally peaceful and harmonious, and live in accord with *the Laws of Naturethe Will of God*so they don't make mistakes and create problems for themselves and their government. . . . Professor Tony Nader, M.D., Ph.D. (who received his weight in gold in 1998 for his extraordinary scientific discoveries, and who has now been honored as His Majesty Raja Raam, first ruler of the Global Country of World Peace) has studied the relationship between the 40 aspects of Veda and Vedic Literaturethe basic impulses of Nature's intelligence vibrating in the Unified Field of Natural Law, the unbounded ocean of consciousnessand the structures and functions of the human physiology. He discovered that *the total intelligence of Naturethe Will of God*which manages 100 billion galaxies, is also fully expressed in our DNA, in each of the trillions of cells of the body, and in the human physiology as a whole.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Left unclear is whether (a) other practices not suitable for students might awaken total brain function, and (b) whether total brain function might awaken spontaneously (i.e., without a specific practice) in some people (including students). Given that neither Bevan or MMY would be likely to maintain that nobody who didn't practice TM as a student has ever awakened total brain function, it makes sense to assume those possibilities aren't being ruled out. Brilliant as usual, Judy. Thanks. Many people have spontaneous experiences of transcending. Maharishi was always clear that transcending is a natural experience described in literature throughout the ages. TM is just a mental technique to transcend systematically. I've taught a few people who said the experience of TM transcending was very familiar to them and that they had had spontaneous experiences of it in the past. I was not surprised to hear this occasionally, since as teen I had a spontaneous transcending experience when I on a church retreat. On one fine summer day in the Irish Hills of Michigan, our pastor told us to be in silence for two hours and had my first experience of transcending. I attached no religious meaning to it. I just wondered, What was that? and never mentioned it to anyone. After I learned TM I remembered the experience I had on the retreat. It was like welcoming an old friend home. Some folks may conceptualize transcending as a religious or spiritual but that is purely and individual choice. No one has to believe anything at all about the experience of transcending. Embellish it with bells and whistles if you like, it is your private business, nobody cares.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Some folks may conceptualize transcending as a religious or spiritual but that is purely and individual choice. No one has to believe anything at all about the experience of transcending. Embellish it with bells and whistles if you like, it is your private business, nobody cares. Bingo. It is yours to enjoy. A gift given from yourself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Apr 19, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Mike Doughney wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ quoted: Professor Tony Nader, M.D., Ph.D. (who received his weight in gold in 1998 for his extraordinary scientific discoveries... Continuing the theme of pompous madness... a video of the stunt of Nader on the scale, followed by his coronation as king, is also up on the net:http://tinyurl.com/nader-gold-stunt ... Holy shit, just when you think you've seen it all! Thanks for posting this insanity, Mike--the scale is an absolute hoot. Has Nader given up all pretense of sanity himself? And how anybody can maintain that Bevan is anything but a flaming fag after hearing him here is beyond me. And poor MMY looked barely awake, that was pretty tough to watch. I thought most everybody here had seen some part of this somewhere, it's kind of an oldie - the part with the scale dates to 1998, the coronation of Nader is from 2000. The insanity has been around for decades in some form or another.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Note the somewhat different language than that being used in the current attempt to sell TM in schools. Note the *equivalence* that is being drawn between two flowery Maharishi euphemisms below and what they really mean both to Bevan and to Maharishi. One of the biggest problems the TM critics here have is a seriously limited imagination, by which I mean an inability to think outside the box of their own preconceptions. (At the same time, what imagination they do have tends to be hyperactive within the context of those preconceptions.) I'm gunna translate this as If you don's see it my way, you are stupid. (Feel free to object.} I object. Got a little K is Structured in C vibe. Not from me, you didn't. Personally I don't think either side of this question is lacking in imagination. Especially since some of the most active critics here taught the perspective you are advocating for years. That MMY's teaching can be understood in either a religious or a nonreligious way? The questions are not black and white and not simple Right. so we both have a lot of room for personal choice in how to view it. What I am advocating is that the public be given the respect of giving them enough information so they can make their own choice. Barry's claiming that Bevan's letter promotes the religious choice. But the *only* religious element in it is the use of Will of God as an alternative to Laws of Nature. That silly claim of Barry's is what I was addressing in this post. If they want to use the version of imagination you are proposing and see the puja as non religious, let 'em. But let's not withhold the information they need to make their own best choice. TM is presented in a way that encourages people to think of it as nonreligious. It tends to promote the nonreligious choice. It almost sounds as though you're advocating that people be encouraged to make the religious choice. That seems odd. If TM is a tool that will be helpful to people and can be viewed either way, why would you want to present it in the way that will make them less likely to take advantage of it? And anyway, as you know, I maintain that it simply isn't possible to give people enough information for them to make their own best choice, exactly because, as you've just acknowledged, it's such a complicated issue. Look at how much time we've spent hashing it over on FFL, and before that on alt.m.t. The above from Barry's post is an example. He notes the equivalence drawn between Laws of Nature and Will of God and concludes that this means the latter is what is really meant and that the former is just a euphemism. This is an interesting point. Let's see where it leads. It never occurs to him to consider whether it might be the *latter* that's a euphemism for the *former*, The reason this is not likely is that Maharishi first taught TM using more explicitly spiritual terms. So by the timeline this is not an option. Not an option? That makes no sense, Curtis. Why couldn't it be the case that he taught in spiritual terms at first because he thought that would have greater appeal? or whether both terms really *are* equivalent, referring to the same abstract dynamic using the terms of different perspectives, one religious and one not. This is one of the options for people to CHOOSE. Exactly, which is why Bevan provided both options. But according to Barry, he provided only one. It requires a certain amount of detachment from most religions as the Cistertian meditating monks found out for themselves. In their opinion is ends up in Hindu triumphalism if you get into the teaching far enough. Big if. And in the opinion of Christian triumphalists at that, who view Hinduism as competition. Is that the kind of view you want to encourage people to hold? In Barry's limited imagination, there's only *one* way to read the Laws of Nature--the Will of God, and that is as the Will of God. I believe you are suggesting that your way is also an only way Judy. Your comment about people not seeing it that way as lacking in imagination reveals that you view your POV as the RIGHT right way. No, that isn't what it reveals at all. That's what you *infer*, but it's not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting--saying straight out, in fact--that Barry's imagination is limited. But it disregards the fact that I have seen it your way for years and now on further reflection (and fantastic development in my powers of imagination) I see it differently. According to an earlier post in this discussion, you were totally gung-ho TM-as-religion when you were a TM teacher. I now choose to believe that Maharishi was pushing
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
What wonderful madness! When Paul pulled out his flute, it went over the top. The eureka point has been achieved! The human physiology is structured in Ved Beat the drum of invincibilty of the cosmic balance of intelligence in the bubbling bliss of Atman!!! If only we could return to the good old days. --- On Sun, 4/19/09, Mike Doughney m...@doughney.com wrote: From: Mike Doughney m...@doughney.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, April 19, 2009, 3:42 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Apr 19, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Mike Doughney wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ quoted: Professor Tony Nader, M.D., Ph.D. (who received his weight in gold in 1998 for his extraordinary scientific discoveries... Continuing the theme of pompous madness... a video of the stunt of Nader on the scale, followed by his coronation as king, is also up on the net:http://tinyurl.com/nader-gold-stunt ... Holy shit, just when you think you've seen it all! Thanks for posting this insanity, Mike--the scale is an absolute hoot. Has Nader given up all pretense of sanity himself? And how anybody can maintain that Bevan is anything but a flaming fag after hearing him here is beyond me. And poor MMY looked barely awake, that was pretty tough to watch. I thought most everybody here had seen some part of this somewhere, it's kind of an oldie - the part with the scale dates to 1998, the coronation of Nader is from 2000. The insanity has been around for decades in some form or another. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
On Apr 19, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Peter wrote: What wonderful madness! When Paul pulled out his flute, it went over the top. The eureka point has been achieved! The human physiology is structured in Ved Beat the drum of invincibilty of the cosmic balance of intelligence in the bubbling bliss of Atman!!! If only we could return to the good old days. Actually the flute was the only part I enjoyed. This video may have been around for years but it's the first I've seen of it. Bevan truly outdid himself, achieving levels of feminine-consciousness the rest of us can only envy. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: What wonderful madness! When Paul pulled out his flute, it went over the top. That was my favorite part. You forgot to mention, it was a *golden* flute. I have to say, I caught what felt like a distinct undertone of tongue-in-cheek to the whole proceeding, especially from King Tony. Looked to me like he thought it was all pretty hilarious. I also liked that at some point before he started his speech, they put supports (covered with gold paper) under the weighing pans so he wouldn't be swaying back and forth. They also put a cushion under him. Quite a show. The press must have enjoyed it thoroughly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: I have to say, I caught what felt like a distinct undertone of tongue-in-cheek to the whole proceeding, especially from King Tony. Looked to me like he thought it was all pretty hilarious. If it's all just tongue-in-cheek hilarity... why did any of it happen? What does Nader get out of it? It looks like humiliation more than anything else, even if the players are enjoying their roles deep inside the bubble of a toy government. Quite a show. The press must have enjoyed it thoroughly. The press conference is merely yet another ritual for the TMO. No press actually show up, the audience for them always appears to be random staffers and the TMO's own press release writers. A Google News search turns up no press reports concerning anything on the video, only 16 results of any kind at any time for Tony Nader with Maharishi, and even fewer hits for Raja Nader. Nobody covers this nonsense; why should they?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
Nobody covers this nonsense; why should they? yeah, that's what i don't get. aside from you and a few others living in the past on here, notably Barry and Vaj, nobody else does seem interested. why are you? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Doughney m...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I have to say, I caught what felt like a distinct undertone of tongue-in-cheek to the whole proceeding, especially from King Tony. Looked to me like he thought it was all pretty hilarious. If it's all just tongue-in-cheek hilarity... why did any of it happen? What does Nader get out of it? It looks like humiliation more than anything else, even if the players are enjoying their roles deep inside the bubble of a toy government. Quite a show. The press must have enjoyed it thoroughly. The press conference is merely yet another ritual for the TMO. No press actually show up, the audience for them always appears to be random staffers and the TMO's own press release writers. A Google News search turns up no press reports concerning anything on the video, only 16 results of any kind at any time for Tony Nader with Maharishi, and even fewer hits for Raja Nader. Nobody covers this nonsense; why should they?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Excerpts from the *2003* attempt to teach TM in schools
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Doughney m...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I have to say, I caught what felt like a distinct undertone of tongue-in-cheek to the whole proceeding, especially from King Tony. Looked to me like he thought it was all pretty hilarious. If it's all just tongue-in-cheek hilarity... why did any of it happen? What does Nader get out of it? It looks like humiliation more than anything else, even if the players are enjoying their roles deep inside the bubble of a toy government. It isn't humiliation if the folks involved are having fun with it. These guys were happy to please MMY by carrying out one of his nutty ideas, but that doesn't mean they didn't realize it was nutty. Quite a show. The press must have enjoyed it thoroughly. The press conference is merely yet another ritual for the TMO. No press actually show up, the audience for them always appears to be random staffers and the TMO's own press release writers. A Google News search turns up no press reports concerning anything on the video This took place in 1998. It surely wouldn't have been a front-page story, so it's not surprising it's not on Google. I do remember seeing press clips at the time from real newspapers. Could be they were written from the press releases, though. , only 16 results of any kind at any time for Tony Nader with Maharishi, and even fewer hits for Raja Nader. Nobody covers this nonsense; why should they?
