[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2009, at 10:33 AM, BillyG. wrote: > > I don't think MMY has ever, to my knowledge, used the > > term, "wait for the mantra" in any context. > > Not sure what his exact words were. The point is it's > a process called "monitoring". Whenever you are > monitoring practice, in allowing the mantra to come or > in having the overarching awareness to return easily > to the mantra, this is smriti or mindfulness. Says Vaj, backpedaling furiously now that three TM teachers and one trained (but not certified) checker have told him he's wrong. He's still wrong, of course; it's not a matter of whether the word "waiting" is used, it's the concept involved--and the fact that the only *instruction* given for how to begin meditating is to introduce the mantra volitionally (but effortlessly). Not a thing about "waiting" for it or "monitoring" it, either in those words or conceptually.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > Vaj and Barry are arrogant bullies. Vaj, the great pretender, thinks he's > doing us a favor tromping on all the plants in the garden patch, and layering > it so thick with artificial manure, only thorns remain. Barry, a victim of > Stockholm Syndrome, brags he is an asshole like his sadistic guru Lenz, and > thinks pushing buttons to elevate himself and ridicule others is doing us a > favor. They are frauds. Worse, in their attempt to intimidate and browbeat > everyone, they lie. > > If Vaj did TM the way he describes and never got checked, it's not surprising > he stopped TM and started looking around for something "better." He's still > looking. Nabby is right. Vaj needs to get checked. LOL > > I don't have any disagreement with anyone who chooses a spiritual path > different from mine and I don't think my way is "better." I sometimes think > a spiritual path choose the person, not the other way around. So it's no > one's fault if they are born a particular religion or race. It's just the > hand they were dealt at birth and it's their job to play it as best they can. > IMO it's karma whether a person does TM or a dozen different techniques all > at once. Ultimately, we're all in this together, so it really doesn't matter. > I'm happy for anyone who chooses a spiritual path because they are doing > their best to become better human being. > > I like the simplicity and naturalness of TM. It resonates with me. I try not > to criticize people for their choices but I make an exception for liars and > hypocrites like Vaj and Barry. > > Vaj is on a mission to "prove" not only is his way "better" but that TM is a > lousy and dangerous practice. Liar. Barry is on a mission to "prove" he > doesn't give a shit, while taking a daily dump on FFLife. Liar. For all the > ballyhooing Vaj and Barry do about TM not producing decent human beings, they > should take a closer look at what they are doing that prevents them from > treating others with dignity and respect. Bingo ! They certainly are on a "mission" to create as much confusion about TM as possible and try to intruce their version of Buddhism, they have been doing this for years here, and probably on several other forums as well. They are both professional liars who seem to get wilder and wilder in their claims as time goes by and the new success of the TMO is growing. One wonders what the Dalai Lama, the head of their religion would think of their activities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Aug 2, 2009, at 10:33 AM, BillyG. wrote: > > > > And of course, the other aspect of mindfulness in TM is > > remembering to > > > come back to the mantra when you get lost in thoughts. If you have > > no > > > mindfulness, you'd sit there lost in thoughts your entire session. > > > There was actually one person on this list who was so worried about > > > reintroducing on the mantra volitionally, he actually believed he > > was > > > practicing TM correctly if he sat in thoughts the whole session, > > > waiting for the mantra to "effortlessly" come up 'like any thought!' > > > When it didn't, he just continued to sit there! > > > > > > TMers that lack this natural mindfulness won't make good TMers IMO, > > > because reacquisition of mantra will never become automatic. It's > > just > > > too languid of a technique for those types of people. That's why for > > > simple mantra meditation, it's always important to give a range of > > > mantra recitation techniques. 'It's about the person, not the > > > technique'. Techniques or methods are always relative. > > > > I don't think MMY has ever, to my knowledge, used the term, "wait > > for the mantra" in any context. > > Not sure what his exact words were. The point is it's a process called > "monitoring". Whenever you are monitoring practice, in allowing the > mantra to come or in having the overarching awareness to return easily > to the mantra, this is smriti or mindfulness. > > Thus one can see why Hicks finds mindfulness so helpful in his direct > experience. > In the correct practice of TM as taught by MMY we do NOT 'monitor' our practice. The word "monitoring" is NEVER used in correct instruction because the correct practice of TM does NOT include monitoring. You would know that, Vaj, if indeed you ever WERE properly trained to teach TM as taught by MMY. Because you repeatedly indicate that you really don't know how TM actually works I very much suspect that you're an outright fraud.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
On Aug 2, 2009, at 10:33 AM, BillyG. wrote: > And of course, the other aspect of mindfulness in TM is remembering to > come back to the mantra when you get lost in thoughts. If you have no > mindfulness, you'd sit there lost in thoughts your entire session. > There was actually one person on this list who was so worried about > reintroducing on the mantra volitionally, he actually believed he was > practicing TM correctly if he sat in thoughts the whole session, > waiting for the mantra to "effortlessly" come up 'like any thought!' > When it didn't, he just continued to sit there! > > TMers that lack this natural mindfulness won't make good TMers IMO, > because reacquisition of mantra will never become automatic. It's just > too languid of a technique for those types of people. That's why for > simple mantra meditation, it's always important to give a range of > mantra recitation techniques. 'It's about the person, not the > technique'. Techniques or methods are always relative. I don't think MMY has ever, to my knowledge, used the term, "wait for the mantra" in any context. Not sure what his exact words were. The point is it's a process called "monitoring". Whenever you are monitoring practice, in allowing the mantra to come or in having the overarching awareness to return easily to the mantra, this is smriti or mindfulness. Thus one can see why Hicks finds mindfulness so helpful in his direct experience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:37 PM, BillyG. wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well of course mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for > > > > > the mantra' is a natural and important part of TM. > > > > > > > > Goodness only knows where you came up with that. > > > > "Waiting for the mantra" has never been a part of > > > > the TM practice I was instructed in. > > > > > > I think she's got ya there Vaj, where did you get the idea that TM > > > involved 'waiting for the mantra'? On the contrary whenever you > > > realize you're not repeating the mantra (during meditation) you > > > effortlessly come back to it, you don't wait for IT to > > > starthu. > > > > She needs to get checked then. > > > > In TM instruction and checking it's referred to as "the right start of > > mantra", meaning the correct start of mantra. Judy's using effort if > > she's doing it any other way, not that I'm surprised. She seems to be > > an effortful kind of person. > > > > "Did you notice that the mantra came effortlessly? This is just the > > right start of the mantra -- effortless thinking. Now close the eyes > > and take it as it comes." > > > > Only if the mantra does not begin on it's own do we consciously > > "introduce" the mantra. > > > > > > And of course, the other aspect of mindfulness in TM is remembering to > > come back to the mantra when you get lost in thoughts. If you have no > > mindfulness, you'd sit there lost in thoughts your entire session. > > There was actually one person on this list who was so worried about > > reintroducing on the mantra volitionally, he actually believed he was > > practicing TM correctly if he sat in thoughts the whole session, > > waiting for the mantra to "effortlessly" come up 'like any thought!' > > When it didn't, he just continued to sit there! > > > > TMers that lack this natural mindfulness won't make good TMers IMO, > > because reacquisition of mantra will never become automatic. It's just > > too languid of a technique for those types of people. That's why for > > simple mantra meditation, it's always important to give a range of > > mantra recitation techniques. 'It's about the person, not the > > technique'. Techniques or methods are always relative. > > I don't think MMY has ever, to my knowledge, used the term, "wait for the > mantra" in any context. > > Although, in the first half minute or so, yes, if the mantra starts on its > own MMY says that is just the "right *start* of the mantra", but he never > says wait for it to start, I don't think. > > > The instruction, after starting the mantra, is very specific in that we are > to come back to the mantra when we realize we are not repeating it, which was > a little unclear in your comment. Overall it is an effortless *effort*. > My experience is the same as Billy's. "Wait for the mantra" was NEVER used as an instruction. >From all my experience with being exposed to Transcendental Meditation as >taught by MMY since 1968, Maharishi himself, my TTC with Maharishi, and >teaching TM, "wait for the mantra" was NEVER used as an instruction.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > I understand where you're coming from, Shemp. In any organization, rigid > personalities seem to rise to the top in proportion to the amount of ass > kissing they can do. I'm sorry you have friends that have been so > inconsiderate of you. You would think they would be happy you enjoy TM. > Assholes. > > I've taught TM, practice the TMSP and go to the dome mostly on the weekends. > Other than that, I don't hang with TM people exclusively. The TM folks I know > and love are not the rigid types. I've never been involved with the upper > echelons of the TMO, the folks living in Vedic City in fancy houses. Don't > get me wrong, I don't begrudge anyone his or her good fortune. It's just that > the big cheeses in the TMO just happen to be very wealthy. It's a class > thing. They keep to their circle of friends and I keep to mine. > > Most of my PT rehab patients at the hospital don't do TM. Most of my patients > in private practice are TM'ers. I also associate with TM'ers and Non-TM'ers > from my involvement with the Democratic Party. Folks who don't know I do TM, > don't know because they didn't ask and those who know, don't care. > > It's not my experience that a TM path and a guru path are incompatible. My > heart belongs to Maharishi even though I don't do all the routines available. > I've had patients who are Purusha guys who are absolutely well balanced > individuals, who do very well being 100% on the program and I've met Purusha > guys who are a mess, physically and emotionally trying to force themselves to > be 100% on the program. They do what they THINK they should rather than what > FEELS nourishing. Eventually, they leave Purusha and if they manage to eat a > chicken sandwich and get married, they're happy. > > Shemp, are the folks criticizing you just a bunch of unhappy, ridged, folks > or are they just mad they're busting their butts trying to get enlightened > and you're not jumping through all the hoops they are? I decided a long time > ago that I won't feel bad about myself if I eat meat, stay up late, have sex, > have a beer or coffee, don't go to the dome every day, etc. etc. I think > it's wrong to judge anyone for the choices they make concerning TM. I know > there are people in the TMO who would judge me for choices I make, but since > it's nobody's business how I live my life, what they don't know won't kill > `em. I keep my private business private and share with people I trust. > > My heart goes out to you for the unfair criticism you experience but I don't > see it as the fault of TM. Rather, folks who gravitated to an organization > with a smorgasbord of things over which they can make themselves go crazy > obsessive compulsive; feel they should eat the whole damn meal. I pick and > choose what feels right and I try to find a place in my heart for all the > crazy OCD folks as well. I've worked with quite a few of them in my practice > and all I can say is, high maintenance folks are a pain in the ass, but I > gotta love `em for challenging my boundaries and forcing me out of my comfort > zone to become a better person. > thanks for the alternate and thoughtful perspective, raunchydog.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > The instruction > is to *start* the mantra volitionally *unless* it > starts on its own. To be precise, the "unless" part is implied, not explicit; and it comes up only in that one place at the very beginning of checking in point 7, if the checkee mentions that the mantra has arisen on its own and the checker says that's fine. Everywhere else in the checking notes, it's assumed that the meditator will have to start the mantra volitionally (but effortlessly).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > > Vaj is on a mission to "prove" not only is his way "better" but that TM is a > lousy and dangerous practice. Liar. Barry is on a mission to "prove" he > doesn't give a shit, while taking a daily dump on FFLife. Liar. For all the > ballyhooing Vaj and Barry do about TM not producing decent human beings, they > should take a closer look at what they are doing that prevents them from > treating others with dignity and respect. It's rather strange that the two biggest liars on FFL, The Turq and the socalled Vaj, both happen to be "Buddhists". What does that tell us about the quality of their meditations ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > If Vaj did TM the way he describes and never got checked, > it's not surprising he stopped TM and started looking > around for something "better." But he claims to have been a TM *teacher*. > I don't have any disagreement with anyone who chooses > a spiritual path different from mine and I don't think > my way is "better." I sometimes think a spiritual path > choose the person, not the other way around. So it's no > one's fault if they are born a particular religion or > race. It's just the hand they were dealt at birth and > it's their job to play it as best they can. IMO it's > karma whether a person does TM or a dozen different > techniques all at once. Ultimately, we're all in this > together, so it really doesn't matter. I'm happy for > anyone who chooses a spiritual path because they are > doing their best to become better human being. Well said. > For all the ballyhooing Vaj and Barry do about TM not > producing decent human beings, they should take a > closer look at what they are doing that prevents them > from treating others with dignity and respect. They aren't exactly setting a good example for the rest of us, that's for sure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > I don't think MMY has ever, to my knowledge, used the > term, "wait for the mantra" in any context. It's definitely not in the checking notes, not even in paraphrase. The instructions are always to *start* the mantra oneself (eight different times in different parts of the checking notes). > Although, in the first half minute or so, yes, if the > mantra starts on its own MMY says that is just the > "right *start* of the mantra" Referring to the effortless quality. The instruction is to *start* the mantra volitionally *unless* it starts on its own. >, but he never says wait for it to start, I don't think. Not in the checking notes, definitely not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Lawson's and my experience is that the mantra arises > automatically with the realization that we haven't > been thinking it; we discussed this awhile back at > some length. Minor correction: As I recall, Lawson said it wasn't *always* the case for him that the mantra arose automatically with the realization that he hadn't been thinking it; sometimes it *was* necessary for him to introduce it volitionally.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:37 PM, BillyG. wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > Well of course mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for > > > > the mantra' is a natural and important part of TM. > > > > > > Goodness only knows where you came up with that. > > > "Waiting for the mantra" has never been a part of > > > the TM practice I was instructed in. > > > > I think she's got ya there Vaj, where did you get the > > idea that TM involved 'waiting for the mantra'? On the > > contrary whenever you realize you're not repeating the > > mantra (during meditation) you effortlessly come back > > to it, you don't wait for IT to starthu. > > She needs to get checked them. > > In TM instruction and checking it's referred to as "the > right start of mantra", meaning the correct start of > mantra. Judy's using effort if she's doing it any other > way, not that I'm surprised. She seems to be an > effortful kind of person. > > "Did you notice that the mantra came effortlessly? This > is just the right start of the mantra -- effortless > thinking. Now close the eyes and take it as it comes." > > Only if the mantra does not begin on it's own do we > consciously "introduce" the mantra. Those who still have a copy of the checking notes might want to have a look at (or just recall, if you no longer have the notes) point 7 (wich begins, "When we close our eyes, naturally we feel some quietness, some silence, yes?"). Notice how Vaj has deliberately taken the "Did you notice..." question completely out of context in an attempt to wiggle out of his mistake. NOWHERE in the checking notes does it say one is to "wait for" the mantra to arise on its own. As I said, that is not part of the instructions for TM. If it does arise on its own, fine. But that isn't what "the right start of the mantra" refers to. In fact, there are *eight*--count 'em, eight-- references in the checking notes to *actively* (but effortlessly) starting the mantra, and NONE to waiting for it to arise. The part Vaj quotes is what the checker responds when the meditator *interjects* into the checking procedure his experience that the mantra has arisen spontaneously, before the checker has given the instruction to begin the mantra. The checker's response is not an instruction, it's a validation that the meditator's reported experience is fine as it is. "Right start" refers to the effortless quality; it isn't an instruction to "wait for" the mantra. > And of course, the other aspect of mindfulness in TM > is remembering to come back to the mantra when you get > lost in thoughts. If you have no mindfulness, you'd > sit there lost in thoughts your entire session. Actually what happens is that when a train of thought ends, or pauses for an instant, the thought that one isn't thinking the mantra arises automatically, no mindfulness required. > There was actually one person on this list who was so > worried about reintroducing on the mantra volitionally, > he actually believed he was practicing TM correctly if > he sat in thoughts the whole session, waiting for the > mantra to "effortlessly" come up 'like any thought!' > When it didn't, he just continued to sit there! Complete and willful distortion of what Lawson said. Lawson wasn't "worried about reintroducing the mantra volitionally." He never said or implied that; Vaj made it up. What Lawson reported was that in some meditation sessions there was *no opportunity* to introduce the mantra volitionally because he was *lost in thoughts* the entire time. And that *is*, as Vaj knows (if he ever was a TM teacher as he claims), practicing TM correctly. > TMers that lack this natural mindfulness won't make good > TMers IMO, because reacquisition of mantra will never > become automatic. This is gibberish. "Automatic" and "mindful" are mutually exclusive. If, as Barry claims, mindfulness involves willfully interrupting a train of thought to invoke the mantra, then it obviously isn't automatic. Lawson's and my experience is that the mantra arises automatically with the realization that we haven't been thinking it; we discussed this awhile back at some length. Lawson's experience was *occasionally* that for the entire meditation session there was no realization that he hadn't been thinking the mantra. But most of the time there *were* such realizations, and the mantra was "reacquired" automatically--which Vaj claims is impossible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:37 PM, BillyG. wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > Well of course mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for > > > > the mantra' is a natural and important part of TM. > > > > > > Goodness only knows where you came up with that. > > > "Waiting for the mantra" has never been a part of > > > the TM practice I was instructed in. > > > > I think she's got ya there Vaj, where did you get the idea that TM > > involved 'waiting for the mantra'? On the contrary whenever you > > realize you're not repeating the mantra (during meditation) you > > effortlessly come back to it, you don't wait for IT to > > starthu. > > She needs to get checked then. > > In TM instruction and checking it's referred to as "the right start of > mantra", meaning the correct start of mantra. Judy's using effort if > she's doing it any other way, not that I'm surprised. She seems to be > an effortful kind of person. > > "Did you notice that the mantra came effortlessly? This is just the > right start of the mantra -- effortless thinking. Now close the eyes > and take it as it comes." > > Only if the mantra does not begin on it's own do we consciously > "introduce" the mantra. > > > And of course, the other aspect of mindfulness in TM is remembering to > come back to the mantra when you get lost in thoughts. If you have no > mindfulness, you'd sit there lost in thoughts your entire session. > There was actually one person on this list who was so worried about > reintroducing on the mantra volitionally, he actually believed he was > practicing TM correctly if he sat in thoughts the whole session, > waiting for the mantra to "effortlessly" come up 'like any thought!' > When it didn't, he just continued to sit there! > > TMers that lack this natural mindfulness won't make good TMers IMO, > because reacquisition of mantra will never become automatic. It's just > too languid of a technique for those types of people. That's why for > simple mantra meditation, it's always important to give a range of > mantra recitation techniques. 'It's about the person, not the > technique'. Techniques or methods are always relative. I don't think MMY has ever, to my knowledge, used the term, "wait for the mantra" in any context. Although, in the first half minute or so, yes, if the mantra starts on its own MMY says that is just the "right *start* of the mantra", but he never says wait for it to start, I don't think. The instruction, after starting the mantra, is very specific in that we are to come back to the mantra when we realize we are not repeating it, which was a little unclear in your comment. Overall it is an effortless *effort*.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:37 PM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > Well of course mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for > > the mantra' is a natural and important part of TM. > > Goodness only knows where you came up with that. > "Waiting for the mantra" has never been a part of > the TM practice I was instructed in. I think she's got ya there Vaj, where did you get the idea that TM involved 'waiting for the mantra'? On the contrary whenever you realize you're not repeating the mantra (during meditation) you effortlessly come back to it, you don't wait for IT to starthu. She needs to get checked them. In TM instruction and checking it's referred to as "the right start of mantra", meaning the correct start of mantra. Judy's using effort if she's doing it any other way, not that I'm surprised. She seems to be an effortful kind of person. "Did you notice that the mantra came effortlessly? This is just the right start of the mantra -- effortless thinking. Now close the eyes and take it as it comes." Only if the mantra does not begin on it's own do we consciously "introduce" the mantra. And of course, the other aspect of mindfulness in TM is remembering to come back to the mantra when you get lost in thoughts. If you have no mindfulness, you'd sit there lost in thoughts your entire session. There was actually one person on this list who was so worried about reintroducing on the mantra volitionally, he actually believed he was practicing TM correctly if he sat in thoughts the whole session, waiting for the mantra to "effortlessly" come up 'like any thought!' When it didn't, he just continued to sit there! TMers that lack this natural mindfulness won't make good TMers IMO, because reacquisition of mantra will never become automatic. It's just too languid of a technique for those types of people. That's why for simple mantra meditation, it's always important to give a range of mantra recitation techniques. 'It's about the person, not the technique'. Techniques or methods are always relative.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex wrote: > > > > Well of course mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for > > > the mantra' is a natural and important part of TM. > > > > Judy wrote: > > Goodness only knows where you came up with that. > > "Waiting for the mantra" has never been a part of > > the TM practice I was instructed in. > > > Oops, it looks like Vaj never practiced TM and Barry > has never been a practicing Buddhist. > Vaj and Barry are arrogant bullies. Vaj, the great pretender, thinks he's doing us a favor tromping on all the plants in the garden patch, and layering it so thick with artificial manure, only thorns remain. Barry, a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, brags he is an asshole like his sadistic guru Lenz, and thinks pushing buttons to elevate himself and ridicule others is doing us a favor. They are frauds. Worse, in their attempt to intimidate and browbeat everyone, they lie. If Vaj did TM the way he describes and never got checked, it's not surprising he stopped TM and started looking around for something "better." He's still looking. Nabby is right. Vaj needs to get checked. LOL I don't have any disagreement with anyone who chooses a spiritual path different from mine and I don't think my way is "better." I sometimes think a spiritual path choose the person, not the other way around. So it's no one's fault if they are born a particular religion or race. It's just the hand they were dealt at birth and it's their job to play it as best they can. IMO it's karma whether a person does TM or a dozen different techniques all at once. Ultimately, we're all in this together, so it really doesn't matter. I'm happy for anyone who chooses a spiritual path because they are doing their best to become better human being. I like the simplicity and naturalness of TM. It resonates with me. I try not to criticize people for their choices but I make an exception for liars and hypocrites like Vaj and Barry. Vaj is on a mission to "prove" not only is his way "better" but that TM is a lousy and dangerous practice. Liar. Barry is on a mission to "prove" he doesn't give a shit, while taking a daily dump on FFLife. Liar. For all the ballyhooing Vaj and Barry do about TM not producing decent human beings, they should take a closer look at what they are doing that prevents them from treating others with dignity and respect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > Long-term TMers on this forum have in the past tried > to describe this process (never having practiced it) > as "unnatural," and cling to the idea that someday, > somehow TM alone will work out their anger and jealousy > and fear, without them ever *doing anything* about the > anger, jealousy and fear. Strange, I don't recall ever having seen a long-term TMer on this forum say anything like this. > Indulging the lower emotions when you have the oppor- > tunity to put them behind you I.e., don't entertain negativity, right? Seems to me I've heard that phrase quite a bit in the TM context. In fact, here are the first two of the "Top Seven Ayurvedic Behavioral Rasayanas" from the Maharishi Ayurveda Newsletter: "1. Speak the sweet truth. There is a saying from the Vedic literature that goes, satyam bruyat, priyam bruyat, which means, 'Speak the sweet truth.' Speaking truth creates ojas in the body, the biochemical correlate of bliss and health. Speaking lies, on the other hand, creates ama, or impurities" (This first one isn't germane in context, but I'm including it for Barry's edification, since it clearly has never been part of his sadhana.) "2. Stay free of anger. Anger is within everyone in seed form. Like a fire with a small flame, if you put oil on it, it can flare up "...Sometimes people enjoy being angry and they think it's their birthright to be angry all the time. But they should be aware that anger not only creates ama and amavisha--flooding the body with harmful hormones--but it also burns ojas" Barry parrots this one frequently, but he seems to be unaware of where he's parroting it *from*; he actually thinks it's *antithetical* to what MMY taught. http://www.mapi.com/ayurveda_health_care/newsletters/ayurvedic_behavioral_rasayanas.html http://tinyurl.com/n4z5ap is IMO exactly the same > thing as NOT coming back to the mantra in TM when > you have realized that you are no longer thinking it. > The latter is *indulging*, not meditating. The former > is *indulging*, not living a spiritual life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
> > Well of course mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for > > the mantra' is a natural and important part of TM. > > Judy wrote: > Goodness only knows where you came up with that. > "Waiting for the mantra" has never been a part of > the TM practice I was instructed in. > Oops, it looks like Vaj never practiced TM and Barry has never been a practicing Buddhist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 10:30 PM, It's just a ride wrote: > > > > IMO Mindfullness meditation is a bit like the first Chopra > > technique, the one where the mantra comes out of the heart > > and then during lie down you feel the bliss in the body. > > After having meditated and performed TMSP for a long time, > > the habit of taking it as it comes and going back to the > > mantra/self is firmly ingrained. From there you just have > > to decide if you're going to think the mantra/be aware of > > the self (TM/TMSP) or be mindful and pull yourself back when > > you get pulled away from being mindful. Being an "expert" > > in TM/TMSP technique, mindfulness comes so easily and naturally. > > > > Mindfullness does complement TM/TMSP. You're always trying to get > > away from yourself and drop into the Self with TM/TMSP. TM/TMSP is > > all about constriction. It's refreshing to just be, just let > > sensations, thoughts and emotions be. > > Well of course mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for the mantra' > is a natural and important part of TM. IMO what has squelched the > development of mindfulness in TM is NOT the lack of mindfulness in > the technique, but instead the institutionalization of the fear > of not being effortless. Right on. What struck me about the statement that you are replying to, Vaj, is that he obviously has NO FUCKING CLUE what mindfulness is. He has just heard the word, and found some experience within his "TM experience database" and tried to do a match to it, without ever bothering to find out what we or other traditions are speaking of when we use the word mindfulness. My bet is that Mr. "Hicks" has never in his entire life read a single book about the real practice of mindfulness...he feels he "doesn't have to, because he's a TMer, and he can just extrapolate from his own experience to what the term 'really' means." Mindfulness -- in most cases in my experience -- *does* involves effort, even if it's as "effortless effort" as that required to "come back to the mantra" in TM. My assessment of why TMers are so threatened by the idea of mindfulness and are so unwilling to even try it is exactly what you said so well -- "the institu- tionalized fear of not being effortless." Thus many of them will *never* avail themselves of techniques that have been shown to allow practitioners to become less reactive and less addicted to the lower emotions such as anger and jealousy and fear IN LESS THAN A WEEK, and all because (IMO) they're terrified that it wouldn't be "effortless." My contention is that mindfulness can be exactly as "effortless" as "coming back to the mantra" in TM. In the case of using mindfulness to deal with the lower emotions, one just trains oneself to first *become aware of the emotions more quickly*, so that you know more quickly when you have been overcome by them, not only after hours of having been overcome by them. And then *when* you have become aware that you have been overcome by one of these emotional states, you gently shift to another one...one that is more pleasant and more productive. Long-term TMers on this forum have in the past tried to describe this process (never having practiced it) as "unnatural," and cling to the idea that someday, somehow TM alone will work out their anger and jealousy and fear, without them ever *doing anything* about the anger, jealousy and fear. It's like they worship the credo of "Beam me up, Scotty," and have been trained to believe that exerting even the slightest effort to not indulge in these compulsive emotions is a form of heresy...an affront to their god Scotty. :-) Indulging the lower emotions when you have the oppor- tunity to put them behind you is IMO exactly the same thing as NOT coming back to the mantra in TM when you have realized that you are no longer thinking it. The latter is *indulging*, not meditating. The former is *indulging*, not living a spiritual life. IMO, of course... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
I understand where you're coming from, Shemp. In any organization, rigid personalities seem to rise to the top in proportion to the amount of ass kissing they can do. I'm sorry you have friends that have been so inconsiderate of you. You would think they would be happy you enjoy TM. Assholes. I've taught TM, practice the TMSP and go to the dome mostly on the weekends. Other than that, I don't hang with TM people exclusively. The TM folks I know and love are not the rigid types. I've never been involved with the upper echelons of the TMO, the folks living in Vedic City in fancy houses. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge anyone his or her good fortune. It's just that the big cheeses in the TMO just happen to be very wealthy. It's a class thing. They keep to their circle of friends and I keep to mine. Most of my PT rehab patients at the hospital don't do TM. Most of my patients in private practice are TM'ers. I also associate with TM'ers and Non-TM'ers from my involvement with the Democratic Party. Folks who don't know I do TM, don't know because they didn't ask and those who know, don't care. It's not my experience that a TM path and a guru path are incompatible. My heart belongs to Maharishi even though I don't do all the routines available. I've had patients who are Purusha guys who are absolutely well balanced individuals, who do very well being 100% on the program and I've met Purusha guys who are a mess, physically and emotionally trying to force themselves to be 100% on the program. They do what they THINK they should rather than what FEELS nourishing. Eventually, they leave Purusha and if they manage to eat a chicken sandwich and get married, they're happy. Shemp, are the folks criticizing you just a bunch of unhappy, ridged, folks or are they just mad they're busting their butts trying to get enlightened and you're not jumping through all the hoops they are? I decided a long time ago that I won't feel bad about myself if I eat meat, stay up late, have sex, have a beer or coffee, don't go to the dome every day, etc. etc. I think it's wrong to judge anyone for the choices they make concerning TM. I know there are people in the TMO who would judge me for choices I make, but since it's nobody's business how I live my life, what they don't know won't kill `em. I keep my private business private and share with people I trust. My heart goes out to you for the unfair criticism you experience but I don't see it as the fault of TM. Rather, folks who gravitated to an organization with a smorgasbord of things over which they can make themselves go crazy obsessive compulsive; feel they should eat the whole damn meal. I pick and choose what feels right and I try to find a place in my heart for all the crazy OCD folks as well. I've worked with quite a few of them in my practice and all I can say is, high maintenance folks are a pain in the ass, but I gotta love `em for challenging my boundaries and forcing me out of my comfort zone to become a better person.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > Well of course mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for > > > the mantra' is a natural and important part of TM. > > > > Goodness only knows where you came up with that. > > "Waiting for the mantra" has never been a part of > > the TM practice I was instructed in. > > I think she's got ya there Vaj, where did you get the > idea that TM involved 'waiting for the mantra'? On the > contrary whenever you realize you're not repeating the > mantra (during meditation) you effortlessly come back > to it, you don't wait for IT to starthu. He's said it before, several times. And he claims to have been a TM teacher.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > Well of course mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for > > the mantra' is a natural and important part of TM. > > Goodness only knows where you came up with that. > "Waiting for the mantra" has never been a part of > the TM practice I was instructed in. I think she's got ya there Vaj, where did you get the idea that TM involved 'waiting for the mantra'? On the contrary whenever you realize you're not repeating the mantra (during meditation) you effortlessly come back to it, you don't wait for IT to starthu.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > Well of course mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for > the mantra' is a natural and important part of TM. Goodness only knows where you came up with that. "Waiting for the mantra" has never been a part of the TM practice I was instructed in.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
On Aug 1, 2009, at 10:30 PM, It's just a ride wrote: On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 3:11 PM, satvadude108 wrote: > > When I took instruction in Mindfullness meditation in '07 > I arbitrarily decided to discontinue my TM. The seeds of > the old brainwashing still have some life I guess. A few > months ago, about a year after Mindfullness instruction, > I began TM again. Practicing them both is neither a strain > nor a conflict and I realize now that a hiatus of one to learn > the other was completely unnecessary. I can't quite put my > finger on it, but there is something very complimentary about > TM and mindfullness/vipassana practice. As I continue my > practice I expect that my feelings about that will clarify itself. > I am glad I have both. > IMO Mindfullness meditation is a bit like the first Chopra technique, the one where the mantra comes out of the heart and then during lie down you feel the bliss in the body. After having meditated and performed TMSP for a long time, the habit of taking it as it comes and going back to the mantra/self is firmly ingrained. From there you just have to decide if you're going to think the mantra/be aware of the self (TM/TMSP) or be mindful and pull yourself back when you get pulled away from being mindful. Being an "expert" in TM/TMSP technique, mindfulness comes so easily and naturally. Mindfullness does complement TM/TMSP. You're always trying to get away from yourself and drop into the Self with TM/TMSP. TM/TMSP is all about constriction. It's refreshing to just be, just let sensations, thoughts and emotions be. Well of course mindfulness of mantra or 'waiting for the mantra' is a natural and important part of TM. IMO what has squelched the development of mindfulness in TM is NOT the lack of mindfulness in the technique, but instead the institutionalization of the fear of not being effortless. Of course it's also important to point out that mindfulness and calmness/transcendence/shamatha are different meditative processes and different ways of working with consciousness/mind. From the POV of Buddhist meditation, they are not ultimately separate and definitely not exclusive but can actually be unified--the union of transcendence and mindfulness--which for some paths is the perfect gateway to a nondual pointing-out.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
On Aug 1, 2009, at 10:14 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 9:37 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > > > Which brainwashing, specifically, are you referring to, Vaj? > > > > > > The core ideas and ideals that were unique to the TM Org and were > > > inculcated at MIU; those which constitute the core of the TM > > cultus. I > > > was not being specific. Was there some that you felt specifically > > like > > > talking about? Which ones have you been able to stand back from > > > objectively? > > > > > > > Vaj, you're the one who made the observation/accusation. Therefore, > > the onus is on YOU to come up with examples of what you are > > referring to. > > > > If you can't, then put up or shut up. > > > Well you've ALREADY told us (numerous times) that some of the adjuncts > to TM that M. insisted we all use to "enliven" our experience of "Pure > Consciousness", many (all?) of these you felt were unessential > additions (Ayurvedic remedies, herbal "purification" regimes, "Vedic" > architecture, jyotish, yagyas, etc., etc.). What had "staying power" > in your SCI/Unified field-based college education and what did not? Did you read my entire post? I answered that already. See the three points I gave as to why I think TM is great and why I started. Yes I did read it. > Do > other old TB grads still talk to you after you have expressed you "TM > purist" ideas or do you avoid rejecting aspects of M's teaching in > front of them for fear they might (as Rick recently described) sever > all contact with you? Again, I answered that. Read the post. You said they were 180 degrees apart and you had been ostracized. I guess I'm to take it that they won't even talk to you any more? How childish. You're one of the few reasonable TM folks on this list. > I'm curious how an old time MIU'er integrates that part of old-time, > "hay day" TM Org thinking and indoctrination with their current life. I meditate twice a day and then go into activity...and do what I want to do, eat what I want, and take political positions that I want...NOT what the TMO dictates. Can't say that's true for the TBers. It is a sad thing. Politics should be left up to the individual. > > I've always found your TM/mantra-yoga purism nicely refreshing and > positive. What were you able to take with you from you SCI/Quantum > mechanical/Vedic science indoctrinations that were at the same level > as your appreciation for pure TM practice...and what was not useful? > > Perhaps this is too personal a question. > The SCI stuff was reasonably useful, although most of it was common sense that was covered in 3 days checking and follow-up courses AND was just common sense. The quantum mechanical stuff, again, was obvious and didn't do much for me because it was just analogies and they never seemed to go past that. MIU was a nice experience in that all the students were really lively intellectually and the fact that they all meditated -- as well as faculty and staff -- I genuinely feel created an atmosphere of learning that was pretty great. Compared to other schools I went to and the learning atmospheres compared, MIUM was, hands down, superior to other places I attended. Well it probably had a lot to do with the caliber of people it attracted, and what they were capable of excepting a part of their reality. But I did NOT like the block system, which I believe is a total failure and should be dropped at once by MUM, and I don't think the SCI application to everything is very useful, either. That should all happen automaticly. That is, definitely take the primary SCI course (although its twice as long and twice as boring as it has to be) and that along with regular TM practise should be enough for the student to apply to ANY subject he is studying, whether at MIU or any other school. I'm surprised at this. I assume you mean the "one course at a time" thing. Personally I found the trimester superior to the semester, so I always thought that the "one course at a time thing" would be superior to either of the above. I HATE having had to take more than one thing at a time: give it all to me, as quickly as you can, as soon as you can. Anything less than that is inferior. To me it seemed like MIU was providing the best learning method out there, esp. given my image of TM as increasing attention span (at the time, late 70's). And, yes, I did feel stifled and held back from questioning my teachers in the way I would have done at another school. But this was more a function of the fact that I was a "TM teacher" and, as such, felt obligated to uphold a certain behaviour. In hindsight, it was wrong of me to do that. I should have questioned any and all things. Of course you also recognized the fact that you would have been kicked out if you had...and you needed to get a degree. Your paren
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 3:11 PM, satvadude108 wrote: > > When I took instruction in Mindfullness meditation in '07 > I arbitrarily decided to discontinue my TM. The seeds of > the old brainwashing still have some life I guess. A few > months ago, about a year after Mindfullness instruction, > I began TM again. Practicing them both is neither a strain > nor a conflict and I realize now that a hiatus of one to learn > the other was completely unnecessary. I can't quite put my > finger on it, but there is something very complimentary about > TM and mindfullness/vipassana practice. As I continue my > practice I expect that my feelings about that will clarify itself. > I am glad I have both. > IMO Mindfullness meditation is a bit like the first Chopra technique, the one where the mantra comes out of the heart and then during lie down you feel the bliss in the body. After having meditated and performed TMSP for a long time, the habit of taking it as it comes and going back to the mantra/self is firmly ingrained. From there you just have to decide if you're going to think the mantra/be aware of the self (TM/TMSP) or be mindful and pull yourself back when you get pulled away from being mindful. Being an "expert" in TM/TMSP technique, mindfulness comes so easily and naturally. Mindfullness does complement TM/TMSP. You're always trying to get away from yourself and drop into the Self with TM/TMSP. TM/TMSP is all about constriction. It's refreshing to just be, just let sensations, thoughts and emotions be.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 9:37 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > > > Which brainwashing, specifically, are you referring to, Vaj? > > > > > > The core ideas and ideals that were unique to the TM Org and were > > > inculcated at MIU; those which constitute the core of the TM > > cultus. I > > > was not being specific. Was there some that you felt specifically > > like > > > talking about? Which ones have you been able to stand back from > > > objectively? > > > > > > > Vaj, you're the one who made the observation/accusation. Therefore, > > the onus is on YOU to come up with examples of what you are > > referring to. > > > > If you can't, then put up or shut up. > > > Well you've ALREADY told us (numerous times) that some of the adjuncts > to TM that M. insisted we all use to "enliven" our experience of "Pure > Consciousness", many (all?) of these you felt were unessential > additions (Ayurvedic remedies, herbal "purification" regimes, "Vedic" > architecture, jyotish, yagyas, etc., etc.). What had "staying power" > in your SCI/Unified field-based college education and what did not? Did you read my entire post? I answered that already. See the three points I gave as to why I think TM is great and why I started. > Do > other old TB grads still talk to you after you have expressed you "TM > purist" ideas or do you avoid rejecting aspects of M's teaching in > front of them for fear they might (as Rick recently described) sever > all contact with you? Again, I answered that. Read the post. > > I'm curious how an old time MIU'er integrates that part of old-time, > "hay day" TM Org thinking and indoctrination with their current life. I meditate twice a day and then go into activity...and do what I want to do, eat what I want, and take political positions that I want...NOT what the TMO dictates. Can't say that's true for the TBers. > > I've always found your TM/mantra-yoga purism nicely refreshing and > positive. What were you able to take with you from you SCI/Quantum > mechanical/Vedic science indoctrinations that were at the same level > as your appreciation for pure TM practice...and what was not useful? > > Perhaps this is too personal a question. > The SCI stuff was reasonably useful, although most of it was common sense that was covered in 3 days checking and follow-up courses AND was just common sense. The quantum mechanical stuff, again, was obvious and didn't do much for me because it was just analogies and they never seemed to go past that. MIU was a nice experience in that all the students were really lively intellectually and the fact that they all meditated -- as well as faculty and staff -- I genuinely feel created an atmosphere of learning that was pretty great. Compared to other schools I went to and the learning atmospheres compared, MIUM was, hands down, superior to other places I attended. But I did NOT like the block system, which I believe is a total failure and should be dropped at once by MUM, and I don't think the SCI application to everything is very useful, either. That should all happen automaticly. That is, definitely take the primary SCI course (although its twice as long and twice as boring as it has to be) and that along with regular TM practise should be enough for the student to apply to ANY subject he is studying, whether at MIU or any other school. And, yes, I did feel stifled and held back from questioning my teachers in the way I would have done at another school. But this was more a function of the fact that I was a "TM teacher" and, as such, felt obligated to uphold a certain behaviour. In hindsight, it was wrong of me to do that. I should have questioned any and all things. In that vein, one of the most liberating things that has happened to me in the past decade was when MMY started that whole recertification thing. Well! It was like a load off my shoulders in a sense. You don't want ME? fine with me, now I'll wear jeans whenever I want and, indeed, go to TM functions WITHOUT a tie!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
On Aug 1, 2009, at 9:37 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > Which brainwashing, specifically, are you referring to, Vaj? > > The core ideas and ideals that were unique to the TM Org and were > inculcated at MIU; those which constitute the core of the TM cultus. I > was not being specific. Was there some that you felt specifically like > talking about? Which ones have you been able to stand back from > objectively? > Vaj, you're the one who made the observation/accusation. Therefore, the onus is on YOU to come up with examples of what you are referring to. If you can't, then put up or shut up. Well you've ALREADY told us (numerous times) that some of the adjuncts to TM that M. insisted we all use to "enliven" our experience of "Pure Consciousness", many (all?) of these you felt were unessential additions (Ayurvedic remedies, herbal "purification" regimes, "Vedic" architecture, jyotish, yagyas, etc., etc.). What had "staying power" in your SCI/Unified field-based college education and what did not? Do other old TB grads still talk to you after you have expressed you "TM purist" ideas or do you avoid rejecting aspects of M's teaching in front of them for fear they might (as Rick recently described) sever all contact with you? I'm curious how an old time MIU'er integrates that part of old-time, "hay day" TM Org thinking and indoctrination with their current life. I've always found your TM/mantra-yoga purism nicely refreshing and positive. What were you able to take with you from you SCI/Quantum mechanical/Vedic science indoctrinations that were at the same level as your appreciation for pure TM practice...and what was not useful? Perhaps this is too personal a question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 8:05 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 12:55 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > > > > > Barry is, of course, completely correct in his analysis below. > > > > > > > > As I've written here many times, the change of course that MMY > > took > > > > was what was responsible for the death of the TM Movement...AND IT > > > > CONTINUES TO THIS DAY. > > > > > > > > And I remember that, ironically, it was Charlie Lutes who warned > > MMY > > > > (I'm sure there must have been dozens more!) that coming out with > > > > the Sidhis and the flying in the way he did would destroy the > > > > movement. I think that's either in Paul Mason's book or Nancy > > Cooke > > > > de Herrera's book, ironically titled "Beyond Gurus", which is what > > > > TM was SUPPOSED to be about. > > > > > > > > Back in '76 before the change took place, the TMO was on track to > > > > initiating millions. That ALL came to a grinding halt with the > > > > sidhis and the flying. One wonders where we'd be today if things > > had > > > > been done differently...or, rather, by the same formula that got > > > > them the original success. > > > > > > > > My big complaint is that as one who subscribes to the ORIGINAL TM > > > > "path", that there is virtually no support for people like me in > > the > > > > TMO. And I suppose that's okay because it's supposed to be a "do > > it > > > > yourself" program. > > > > > > > > > Have you checked the aluminum foil on that southern door lately? It > > > sounds like it may be a bit loose, and causing your MIU brainwashing > > > to get a tad dirty! > > > > > > > Which brainwashing, specifically, are you referring to, Vaj? > > The core ideas and ideals that were unique to the TM Org and were > inculcated at MIU; those which constitute the core of the TM cultus. I > was not being specific. Was there some that you felt specifically like > talking about? Which ones have you been able to stand back from > objectively? > Vaj, you're the one who made the observation/accusation. Therefore, the onus is on YOU to come up with examples of what you are referring to. If you can't, then put up or shut up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
On Aug 1, 2009, at 8:05 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 12:55 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > Barry is, of course, completely correct in his analysis below. > > > > As I've written here many times, the change of course that MMY took > > was what was responsible for the death of the TM Movement...AND IT > > CONTINUES TO THIS DAY. > > > > And I remember that, ironically, it was Charlie Lutes who warned MMY > > (I'm sure there must have been dozens more!) that coming out with > > the Sidhis and the flying in the way he did would destroy the > > movement. I think that's either in Paul Mason's book or Nancy Cooke > > de Herrera's book, ironically titled "Beyond Gurus", which is what > > TM was SUPPOSED to be about. > > > > Back in '76 before the change took place, the TMO was on track to > > initiating millions. That ALL came to a grinding halt with the > > sidhis and the flying. One wonders where we'd be today if things had > > been done differently...or, rather, by the same formula that got > > them the original success. > > > > My big complaint is that as one who subscribes to the ORIGINAL TM > > "path", that there is virtually no support for people like me in the > > TMO. And I suppose that's okay because it's supposed to be a "do it > > yourself" program. > > > Have you checked the aluminum foil on that southern door lately? It > sounds like it may be a bit loose, and causing your MIU brainwashing > to get a tad dirty! > Which brainwashing, specifically, are you referring to, Vaj? The core ideas and ideals that were unique to the TM Org and were inculcated at MIU; those which constitute the core of the TM cultus. I was not being specific. Was there some that you felt specifically like talking about? Which ones have you been able to stand back from objectively?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 12:55 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > Barry is, of course, completely correct in his analysis below. > > > > As I've written here many times, the change of course that MMY took > > was what was responsible for the death of the TM Movement...AND IT > > CONTINUES TO THIS DAY. > > > > And I remember that, ironically, it was Charlie Lutes who warned MMY > > (I'm sure there must have been dozens more!) that coming out with > > the Sidhis and the flying in the way he did would destroy the > > movement. I think that's either in Paul Mason's book or Nancy Cooke > > de Herrera's book, ironically titled "Beyond Gurus", which is what > > TM was SUPPOSED to be about. > > > > Back in '76 before the change took place, the TMO was on track to > > initiating millions. That ALL came to a grinding halt with the > > sidhis and the flying. One wonders where we'd be today if things had > > been done differently...or, rather, by the same formula that got > > them the original success. > > > > My big complaint is that as one who subscribes to the ORIGINAL TM > > "path", that there is virtually no support for people like me in the > > TMO. And I suppose that's okay because it's supposed to be a "do it > > yourself" program. > > > Have you checked the aluminum foil on that southern door lately? It > sounds like it may be a bit loose, and causing your MIU brainwashing > to get a tad dirty! > Which brainwashing, specifically, are you referring to, Vaj?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
On Aug 1, 2009, at 12:55 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: Barry is, of course, completely correct in his analysis below. As I've written here many times, the change of course that MMY took was what was responsible for the death of the TM Movement...AND IT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY. And I remember that, ironically, it was Charlie Lutes who warned MMY (I'm sure there must have been dozens more!) that coming out with the Sidhis and the flying in the way he did would destroy the movement. I think that's either in Paul Mason's book or Nancy Cooke de Herrera's book, ironically titled "Beyond Gurus", which is what TM was SUPPOSED to be about. Back in '76 before the change took place, the TMO was on track to initiating millions. That ALL came to a grinding halt with the sidhis and the flying. One wonders where we'd be today if things had been done differently...or, rather, by the same formula that got them the original success. My big complaint is that as one who subscribes to the ORIGINAL TM "path", that there is virtually no support for people like me in the TMO. And I suppose that's okay because it's supposed to be a "do it yourself" program. Have you checked the aluminum foil on that southern door lately? It sounds like it may be a bit loose, and causing your MIU brainwashing to get a tad dirty!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: [snip] > > I tell yas these rambling tales Shemp just to show you > I am interested in hearing your TMSP experiences and what > led you to distance yourself from the Movement. Hearing > it from someone still satisfied with their is always interesting. > > Think cool thoughts Shemp. It makes summer in Arizona > bearable. [snip] What makes me different from Barry, satvadude, I think is the fact that I still do TM. With the exception of a few periods in my life when I wasn't regular, I've pretty much done TM twice a day since I started in April 1973. I went to TTC a year later. And I must tell ya' I pretty much was uncomfortable with the Movement from my first contact with them at TTC. It seemed filled with vindictive, unhappy people who, for the most part, did NOT reflect what TM is supposed to create in its practitioners. I'm talking here of the people running the thing, not the course participants and yes, of course, there were certainly the Nabby types but mostly good, decent people. And, again, I suspect, unlike Barry, I didn't conclude that TM didn't work because of the schmucks I met running the TMO. I put that down to the fact that an organisation claiming to be able to solve your problems is probably going to attract a disproportionate percentage of nutcases and -- voila! -- here they are around MMY. To date, I haven't been dissuaged from that assessment. Here's another way I am different from Barry: there are, literally, thousands of paths, techniques and ways to get to "the goal". TM is one of them. Barry believes that unless one tries other methods one cannot claim that TM is the best way. Perhaps he is right. I certainly haven't tried many others other than TM so I certainly can't say anything in that regard. But with all the methods out there I would, literally, have to try at least one a day for the rest of my life in order to rationally and fairly say that TM is the best. And I don't think Barry has tried all the methods either (or he wouldn't have the time that he devotes to pulling Judy's pigtails everyday here on this forum). So unless ALL methods are tried, no one is in a position to say this one or that one is the best. TM attracted me because of (1) its simplicity and ease and universality which, despite what Barry tells you, IS most definitely unique to TM (except for those teachers that teach techniques that they themselves learned from the TMO and MMY); (2) whether they're ultimately legit or not, the TMO had the technique tested scientifically...AND boldly dare the public at large and the scientific community to study it; and (3) no change in lifestyle, religion, or whatever was required to do it (at least that was the way TM was taught back in the day...now, of course, it's different and that's the subject of what we're discussing here, isnt' it?). Numerous times on this forum I have reproduced the 1974 Belgium discourse by MMY (it's about 30 seconds long) in which he says: just do TM twice a day and then go about your business; indeed, you can do hundreds of different meditations if you want as long as you do TM twice a day. This discourse is so important to me because, in an albeit extreme way, it epitomizes what TM is supposed to be all about. But back to your original question, above. I find the TMO filled with people who really are not on the same path as me...and these are people that I dearly love, who I consider great friends, and whom I've known now for decades and worked alongside in the TMO and/or went to MIU with. But they are on an entirely different path than me; they are on the TM Guru path whereas I am on the TM Program path. And you know what? The two paths ARE 180 DEGREES DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER AND THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER. And I have been shunned, ostracized, and isolated for being on the TM Program and adhering and sticking to it. Am I bitter? Yes, I am. And I am angry at the TMO for taking the path that they have...and for shutting people like me out. God bless them all if they want to do yagyas, ayurveda, architecture, start political parties and all that stuff...BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TM PROGRAM; IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TM PROGRAM. Indeed, as I mentioned before, the interference of their path into MY path has destroyed the TMO and ruined any chance for the successful dissemination of the TM Program throughout the world. I am especially bitter towards those who were fortunate enough to be around MMY and had the chance of telling him that he was going about things the wrong way. Gosh, it wasn't rocket science to know things would turn out the way they did. But instead of being useful to him by NOT being Yes-Men, they enabled him by being vampires and sucking the life-blood out of him and telling him what they thought he wanted here. It was their dharma -- yes, their dharma --
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
I tend to agree with you Shemp and would be interested in reading the arch of your involvement in the TMO. I believe you have mentioned your TTC several times. Did you then teach full-time? Did you take the Sidhis course? One of the early ones? If so, did you practice them for a long period of time and what led to your ending that practice? What, if anything, led to your leaving "The Movement?" I'm not interested in hacking on you and don't wish to come across as a stalker. I just find it interesting to hear peoples stories about those things. It seems that Barry was tending toward an exit and that his decision was perhaps was assisted by his experiences with an early Sidhis course. I never attended TTC and it seems the design of the early Sidhi courses was a typical "movement" throw it at the wall and see what sticks. My own Sidhis CIC course was one of the later '80s ones in which the instruction had been clearly codified and streamlined. I had observed, anecdotally, very uneven results and experiences with earlier courses among people I knew. I had very clear experiences and never felt short changed by the instruction. I discontinued my TMSP, but continued TM, when I was not enjoying the effect on my day to day life. The increasingly "refined perception" was annoying at best. I never felt compelled to share with the TMO my exposure to other paths I encountered over the years. So many were readily available in the USA in the 70's and 80's. Sufi meditation with Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan, kundalini and White Tantra with Yogi Bhajan, various practices at Naropa when Chögyam Trungpa was still kickin' and drinkin', and Zen. A few others that I haven't dusted off in what seems like decades. Never had the pleasure of encountering Mr. Lenz as I always got a very bad vibe there. No one ever told me, and I didn't ask, but I alway thought that the half dozen TM advanced techniques I received over the years might not have been available to me had I been advertising involvement in various things. Never really felt like being a joiner and being a "devotee" ain't my thang. I figure I did my time as an altar boy in the '60s and enjoyed looking around. I consider myself defrocked. :-) TM experiences were good and definitely seemed enhanced by the advanced techniques, with the exception of the last. They got more expensive as the years went on but that was never a great burden. My last two were after my CIC course. When I took instruction in Mindfullness meditation in '07 I arbitrarily decided to discontinue my TM. The seeds of the old brainwashing still have some life I guess. A few months ago, about a year after Mindfullness instruction, I began TM again. Practicing them both is neither a strain nor a conflict and I realize now that a hiatus of one to learn the other was completely unnecessary. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is something very complimentary about TM and mindfullness/vipassana practice. As I continue my practice I expect that my feelings about that will clarify itself. I am glad I have both. Given the behavior and trajectory of the TMO for quite a few years I have found it impossible to recommend it as a place to go for meditation instruction. I do, however, heartily recommend what groups like InsightLa, the Insight Meditation Society, and Jon Kabat-Zinn's MBSR are doing. I saw enough weirdness with Chögyam Trungpa and others in his organization in the 70's to find it hard to take the Shambala folks seriously. I say that in spite of the fact that they are held in high regard by some folks who I hold in high regard. Go figure. I chalk it up to a cultural thang akin to my not being convinced that being whacked by a keisaku/kyosaku is compassionate. Maybe I had severe Inos, but that makes me wanna gassho myowndamnself outta there. I tell yas these rambling tales Shemp just to show you I am interested in hearing your TMSP experiences and what led you to distance yourself from the Movement. Hearing it from someone still satisfied with their is always interesting. Think cool thoughts Shemp. It makes summer in Arizona bearable. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" wrote: > > Barry is, of course, completely correct in his analysis below. > > As I've written here many times, the change of course that MMY took was what > was responsible for the death of the TM Movement...AND IT CONTINUES TO THIS > DAY. > > And I remember that, ironically, it was Charlie Lutes who warned MMY (I'm > sure there must have been dozens more!) that coming out with the Sidhis and > the flying in the way he did would destroy the movement. I think that's > either in Paul Mason's book or Nancy Cooke de Herrera's book, ironically > titled "Beyond Gurus", which is what TM was SUPPOSED to be about. > > Back in '76 before the change took place, the TMO was on track to initiating > millions. That ALL came to a grinding halt with the sidhis and the flying.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" wrote: > > Barry is, of course, completely correct in his analysis below. > > As I've written here many times, the change of course that MMY took was what > was responsible for the death of the TM Movement...AND IT CONTINUES TO THIS > DAY. > > And I remember that, ironically, it was Charlie Lutes who warned MMY (I'm > sure there must have been dozens more!) that coming out with the Sidhis and > the flying in the way he did would destroy the movement. I think that's > either in Paul Mason's book or Nancy Cooke de Herrera's book, ironically > titled "Beyond Gurus", which is what TM was SUPPOSED to be about. > > Back in '76 before the change took place, the TMO was on track to initiating > millions. That ALL came to a grinding halt with the sidhis and the flying. > One wonders where we'd be today if things had been done differently...or, > rather, by the same formula that got them the original success. > > My big complaint is that as one who subscribes to the ORIGINAL TM "path", > that there is virtually no support for people like me in the TMO. And I > suppose that's okay because it's supposed to be a "do it yourself" program. > > But it sure is lonely here. Without a social foundation the tmorg will wither and die, look at how old most of the Raja's are. A prosperous thriving institution must have social outlets where like minds can meet, marry and further the goals of the institution. I think MMY was more interested in conquering the World with his message of "Yoga-lite for modernity"; (I think he even said he was in a hurry) his mission was perhaps macrocosmic in scope and not targeted towards the individual like a Sat-Guru's would be! Never the less, Yoga-lite is better than NO TM/Yoga at all!! by far! TM, as taught, is introductory Yoga for the masses.. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Recent talk of "needing a guru" here has reminded me > > of a phenomenon that many TB TMers are either unaware > > of (because they started TM so much later than others > > here and thus missed the earlier teachings) or they > > have blotted out the earlier teachings from their minds > > (because they don't want to deal with the fact that > > Maharishi completely reversed himself). > > > > I call this phenomenon the "Maharishi Flip-Flop." It's > > where Maharishi started his "career" as a spiritual > > teacher teaching one thing -- emphatically -- and then > > LATER "flip-flopped" and began teaching or doing > > *exactly the opposite* of what he had said/taught before. > > > > The most famous example of this, of course, is the siddhis. > > In courses throughout the late 60s, Maharishi was clear > > to the point of being emphatic that they were dangerous > > and should *not* be pursued by spiritual seekers. The whole > > "capture the fort" analogy was *invented* as a reply to > > students who asked about the siddhis and how to achieve > > them. MMY's teaching *at that time* was that it was safer > > to "capture the fort," and allow such siddhis to blossom > > on their own, if they did. He definitely *discouraged* > > people from ever trying to achieve the siddhis. > > > > Of course, we all know how that turned out. And a number > > of us here probably now feel that his earlier teaching > > -- before the flip-flop -- was more correct. > > > > But for me, the "Maharishi Flip-Flop" teaching that has > > had the most debilitating effect on students, and has > > thus incurred the most negative karma, is the flip-flop > > he made on "gurus" and whether one should rely on them > > when it comes to advice on how to live one's life. > > > > I remember Maharishi clearly addressing this issue in > > response to a question from the audience, the first time > > I ever saw him, in 1967. The person asked him for advice > > on how to resolve a quandary or problem in his life. In > > effect, the questioner was asking Maharishi to make the > > decision for him -- tell him what to do, give him the > > "right" answer. > > > > Maharishi categorically refused to do so, and explained why. > > He said, "If I tell you what to do...what decision to make > > ...what happens the *next* time you need to make a decision? > > You'll come running to me asking me to make it for you." > > > > He then went on to give a long talk on how the idea of > > "gurus" telling their students what to do and how to live > > was a *mistake*, because "It makes the students weaker. > > As they become dependent on the guru or teacher to make > > decisions for them, they lose the ability to make decisions > > themselves." At this point, as he always did, Maharishi > > segued into a discussion of TM, and how theoretically it > > would enable the student to become stronger and more able > > to make his OWN decisions, and not need anyone to make > > them for him. > > > > Cut to only a few years later, and how Maharishi began
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
Barry is, of course, completely correct in his analysis below. As I've written here many times, the change of course that MMY took was what was responsible for the death of the TM Movement...AND IT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY. And I remember that, ironically, it was Charlie Lutes who warned MMY (I'm sure there must have been dozens more!) that coming out with the Sidhis and the flying in the way he did would destroy the movement. I think that's either in Paul Mason's book or Nancy Cooke de Herrera's book, ironically titled "Beyond Gurus", which is what TM was SUPPOSED to be about. Back in '76 before the change took place, the TMO was on track to initiating millions. That ALL came to a grinding halt with the sidhis and the flying. One wonders where we'd be today if things had been done differently...or, rather, by the same formula that got them the original success. My big complaint is that as one who subscribes to the ORIGINAL TM "path", that there is virtually no support for people like me in the TMO. And I suppose that's okay because it's supposed to be a "do it yourself" program. But it sure is lonely here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > Recent talk of "needing a guru" here has reminded me > of a phenomenon that many TB TMers are either unaware > of (because they started TM so much later than others > here and thus missed the earlier teachings) or they > have blotted out the earlier teachings from their minds > (because they don't want to deal with the fact that > Maharishi completely reversed himself). > > I call this phenomenon the "Maharishi Flip-Flop." It's > where Maharishi started his "career" as a spiritual > teacher teaching one thing -- emphatically -- and then > LATER "flip-flopped" and began teaching or doing > *exactly the opposite* of what he had said/taught before. > > The most famous example of this, of course, is the siddhis. > In courses throughout the late 60s, Maharishi was clear > to the point of being emphatic that they were dangerous > and should *not* be pursued by spiritual seekers. The whole > "capture the fort" analogy was *invented* as a reply to > students who asked about the siddhis and how to achieve > them. MMY's teaching *at that time* was that it was safer > to "capture the fort," and allow such siddhis to blossom > on their own, if they did. He definitely *discouraged* > people from ever trying to achieve the siddhis. > > Of course, we all know how that turned out. And a number > of us here probably now feel that his earlier teaching > -- before the flip-flop -- was more correct. > > But for me, the "Maharishi Flip-Flop" teaching that has > had the most debilitating effect on students, and has > thus incurred the most negative karma, is the flip-flop > he made on "gurus" and whether one should rely on them > when it comes to advice on how to live one's life. > > I remember Maharishi clearly addressing this issue in > response to a question from the audience, the first time > I ever saw him, in 1967. The person asked him for advice > on how to resolve a quandary or problem in his life. In > effect, the questioner was asking Maharishi to make the > decision for him -- tell him what to do, give him the > "right" answer. > > Maharishi categorically refused to do so, and explained why. > He said, "If I tell you what to do...what decision to make > ...what happens the *next* time you need to make a decision? > You'll come running to me asking me to make it for you." > > He then went on to give a long talk on how the idea of > "gurus" telling their students what to do and how to live > was a *mistake*, because "It makes the students weaker. > As they become dependent on the guru or teacher to make > decisions for them, they lose the ability to make decisions > themselves." At this point, as he always did, Maharishi > segued into a discussion of TM, and how theoretically it > would enable the student to become stronger and more able > to make his OWN decisions, and not need anyone to make > them for him. > > Cut to only a few years later, and how Maharishi began to > treat the meditators and TM teachers who had "signed on" to > the TM movement. It was a complete and total flip-flop. He > began to dictate what they should wear and not wear, what > they should eat and not eat, what they should believe and > not believe, and who they should hang around with and not > hang around with. It is not unfair to say that on courses > *every* aspect of a TM student's life was dictated to him; > every minute of every day was *literally* "being told what > to do," by the guru. And soon this "being told what to do" > began to creep over into the lives of the TM teachers when > they were *not* on courses as well. > > And I think that most here have seen the debilitating > effects of coming to rely on Maharishi to tell them what > to do. Tens of thousands of TM teachers literally *lost > their ability* to think for
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which "Maharishi Flip-Flop Teaching" has the worst karma?
Yes TurquoiseB, I would have to say A-um to that, for that is what happened. It was quite a mystery. I mean, it was Maharishi's whole thing that TM did not need any adjuncts, nothing extra to gain the benefits of any other system of practice or philosophy. Then it was a whole turnabout and it was time to sign up for walking through walls, materialising fruit and lift off. And most importantly, virtually the whole of the TM philosophy did a somersault. So, necessarilly, those who indulge in Maharishi-speak find themselves not only frog-hopping on their butts but doing wierd contortions in their minds in order to defend his thinking. Not necessary when dealing with his original teachings, only necessary in order to deal with the 'other' Maharishi teaching. Mind you I think his original philosophy was a bit far-fetched too, in that meditation is an end in itself, clarity of consciousness, it does not need to prove itself of benefit elsewhere. And it anything but proved that it does benefit anyone else but the practitioner, that it pure speculation. Personally, I find meditation cleans the windscreen of the mind, but beyond that, in practical terms I would not make any further claims for it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > Recent talk of "needing a guru" here has reminded me > of a phenomenon that many TB TMers are either unaware > of (because they started TM so much later than others > here and thus missed the earlier teachings) or they > have blotted out the earlier teachings from their minds > (because they don't want to deal with the fact that > Maharishi completely reversed himself). > > I call this phenomenon the "Maharishi Flip-Flop." It's > where Maharishi started his "career" as a spiritual > teacher teaching one thing -- emphatically -- and then > LATER "flip-flopped" and began teaching or doing > *exactly the opposite* of what he had said/taught before. > > The most famous example of this, of course, is the siddhis. > In courses throughout the late 60s, Maharishi was clear > to the point of being emphatic that they were dangerous > and should *not* be pursued by spiritual seekers. The whole > "capture the fort" analogy was *invented* as a reply to > students who asked about the siddhis and how to achieve > them. MMY's teaching *at that time* was that it was safer > to "capture the fort," and allow such siddhis to blossom > on their own, if they did. He definitely *discouraged* > people from ever trying to achieve the siddhis. > > Of course, we all know how that turned out. And a number > of us here probably now feel that his earlier teaching > -- before the flip-flop -- was more correct. > > But for me, the "Maharishi Flip-Flop" teaching that has > had the most debilitating effect on students, and has > thus incurred the most negative karma, is the flip-flop > he made on "gurus" and whether one should rely on them > when it comes to advice on how to live one's life. > > I remember Maharishi clearly addressing this issue in > response to a question from the audience, the first time > I ever saw him, in 1967. The person asked him for advice > on how to resolve a quandary or problem in his life. In > effect, the questioner was asking Maharishi to make the > decision for him -- tell him what to do, give him the > "right" answer. > > Maharishi categorically refused to do so, and explained why. > He said, "If I tell you what to do...what decision to make > ...what happens the *next* time you need to make a decision? > You'll come running to me asking me to make it for you." > > He then went on to give a long talk on how the idea of > "gurus" telling their students what to do and how to live > was a *mistake*, because "It makes the students weaker. > As they become dependent on the guru or teacher to make > decisions for them, they lose the ability to make decisions > themselves." At this point, as he always did, Maharishi > segued into a discussion of TM, and how theoretically it > would enable the student to become stronger and more able > to make his OWN decisions, and not need anyone to make > them for him. > > Cut to only a few years later, and how Maharishi began to > treat the meditators and TM teachers who had "signed on" to > the TM movement. It was a complete and total flip-flop. He > began to dictate what they should wear and not wear, what > they should eat and not eat, what they should believe and > not believe, and who they should hang around with and not > hang around with. It is not unfair to say that on courses > *every* aspect of a TM student's life was dictated to him; > every minute of every day was *literally* "being told what > to do," by the guru. And soon this "being told what to do" > began to creep over into the lives of the TM teachers when > they were *not* on courses as well. > > And I think that most here have seen the debilitating > effects of coming to rely on Maharishi to tell them what > to do. T
