Maharishi videotape details
Paul Wilson
A few weeks ago, I posted that I had a ten year, complete set of satellite
broadcasts of 12 January inaugural celebrations, and that I was making
copies available. I got enough interested emails that I thought I should
explain what is on each broadcast to possibly interest other people. Email
me for individual or set prices.
12 January 1988 Maharishi's Year of World Peace
2 tapes; Maharishi Nagar, India; poor quality
Celebration of World Peace Day
Addresses:
Maharishi
Neil Patterson reads the summary of Maharishi's Master Plan to Create
Heaven on Earth
Deepak Chopra
12 January 1989 Maharishi's Year of Heaven on Earth
2 tapes; Maharishi Nagar, India; fair quality
Addresses:
Bevan Morris reads the history of the Movement
Maharishi
Introduction of Creating Heaven on Earth textbook
Deepak Chopra
presentation on Maharishi Vedaland
12 January 1990 Maharishi's Year of Alliance with Nature's Government
2 tapes; Maharishi Nagar, India; poor quality
Addresses:
Maharishi
Dr. S.K. Kapoor discusses his solutions to Fermat's Last Theorem through
Vedic mathematics
Deepak Chopra
presentation on 55,000 New Delhi police learning TM
Vijay Kavan, Police Commissioner of Delhi
Neil Patterson describes the dawn of world peace in 1989
12 January 1991 Maharishi's Year of Support of Nature's Government
3 tapes; Maastricht, Holland; good quality
Debu Chauduri Gandharv-Ved performance
Addresses:
Jacques Uljen, TM National Leader for the Netherlands
Maharishi
Doug Henning on Vedaland and VedaVision
Eike Hartmann on Sthapatya-Ved
Deepak Chopra
John Hagelin
Jyotish predictions about the Gulf War
David Orme-Johnson on Maharishi Effect research
12 January 1992 Maharishi's Year of the Constitution of the Universe
2 tapes; Vlodrop, Holland; good quality
Addresses:
Maharishi
History of the Movement
John Hagelin on the Constitution of the Universe
Deepak Chopra discussing holographic theory of human physiology
Doug Henning on Vedaland and VedaVision
Dr Mahapatra describing 7000 group at Maharishi Nagar, India
Jacques Uljen on national constitutions
Stuart Zimmerman on Maharishi Center for Perfect Health and World Peace
Presentation on Maharishi Vedic University in Moscow
12 January 1993 Maharishi's Year of Administration Through Natural Law
2 tapes; Vlodrop, Holland; fair quality
Addresses:
Yatinam Brahma bhavati sarathih
Groups for a Government
Maharishi
Igal Moria on Heaven on Earth in history
description of Maharishi's and Ram Raj's Jyotish kundali intersection
Neil Patterson
Tony Nader
Dr Udomsil Srisangam, Deputy Minister of Public Health in Thailand, on
Maharishi Ayur-Ved utilization there
Mike Tompkins on Natural Law Parties worldwide
Doug Henning
Hari Sharma on free radicals
Eike Hartmann on Ayodhya
Rodgers Badgett on the Maharishi Center for Perfect Health and World Peace
Ule Bauhoffer on Ayur-Veda center in Germany
3 July 1993 Guru Purnimah
2 tapes; Vlodrop, Holland; excellent quality
First Year of Ram Raj
Debu Chauduri performance of Gandharv-Ved
Addresses:
Maharishi
Inauguration of Vedic Universities and Ayur-Veda Universities
John Hagelin
President Chissano of Mozambique
12 January 1994 Maharishi's Year of the Discovery of Veda in Human Physiology
2 tapes; Vlodrop, Holland; good quality
Addresses:
Maharishi
Tony Nader
Neil Patterson
John Hagelin
Jacques Uljen
Doug Henning
John Boncheff on Nyaya Sutras of Gautama
Darbari Set, President of Tata Tea and Tata Chemicals in India, with
20,000 meditating employes
12 January 1995 Maharishi's Year of Silence
2 tapes; Vlodrop, Holland; very good quality
Addresses:
Maharishi
Bevan Morris summarizes the history of the Movement
the foreign minister of Cambodia discussing the MVU in Cambodia
Neil Patterson on Maharishi's three publications in 1994
12 January 1996 Maharishi's Year of Awakening
2 tapes; Vlodrop, Holland; very good quality
Addresses:
Maharishi
Neil Patterson on Maharishi's role in the world today
Devendra Triguna on Madhya Pradesh project
Sri Anand Shrivastava, President of Maharishi Ayur-Veda Products, International
Dr Mukesh Nayak, Minister of Higher Education for Madhya Pradesh, on the
creation of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University in Bhopal, M.P., India
Tony Nader
12 January 1997 Maharishi's Year of Global Administration Through Natural Law
3 tapes; Vlodrop, Holland; excellent quality
Addresses:
Maharishi
Bevan Morris on the time zone project
Time Zone Administrator's taking of oath of office
Tony Nader
Dr Volker Schanbacher on scientific principles supporting global administration
John Hagelin
--
***********************************************************
Paul Wilson, Indianapolis
Macmillan Computer Publishing
Natural Law Party
(317) 895-0365
The continuity of change is the key
to the eternity of the universe. -- I Ching
***********************************************************
John A. Stanley
In article <19970204004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
>My name is Curtis Mailloux. I meditated for 15 years and practiced the
>sidhis for 10 years. In 1979 I graduated from M.I.U. and spent 3 years at
>the Florida Sidha land rounding. After that I spent a year training to be
>a teacher and tought TM as the Washington DC center chairman for one year.
I remember the Des Moines Register about you... I recall something
about you doing program on a deer skin and other such mood-making.
Why did you bitch about the TM Movement when you were obviously way
off the program in some wannabe guru fantasy?
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net
"Hey! You got your razor in my wager!"
Cblues101
My name is Curtis Mailloux. I meditated for 15 years and practiced the
sidhis for 10 years. In 1979 I graduated from M.I.U. and spent 3 years at
the Florida Sidha land rounding. After that I spent a year training to be
a teacher and tought TM as the Washington DC center chairman for one year.
In 1989 I studied a few different perspectives about the experiences I was
having with TM that shifted my interpretation of my personal experience.
This led me to discontinuing the practice, and I have not done any of the
program for the last 8 years. In the last 8 years my life has grown in
many ways and I truely believe that TM was holding me back from growth
rather than enhancing it. I did enjoy the experiences I had with TM, but
now see it as a form of fantasy rather than a profound insight into true
reality. I have read the combative nature of most discussions with ex
members. I came under a lot of direct attack when I left the movement
from people I had viewed as friends. I do not find TM to have developed
this group's members into a special group in any way. I know that as a
member I believed that I was becoming spiritual and special. I do not see
increased compassion in this group, and most intellectual discussions
about TM with ex members seems to digress into ad hominin attacks to
discredit the person rather than to discuss what is being debated.
So why am I posting this message? I want to give past friends a chance to
contact me if they want to. Because I now believe that the maharishi is
mistaken about reality did not make me hate my past friends. I found that
many TM friends became hostile about my new position and my willingness to
talk to the press about my perspective. I was hurt by this for a while
but time heals all wounds and I hope that goes both ways. Every once in a
while I am surprised by a phone call from a member who can relate to me in
a human way with the ability to disagree about this one area of life. I
have had great discussions with some people who were able to enjoy
intellectual discussions without having to get nasty about my different
opinions. One of the best things to have come out of me leaving this
group is that I have developed a real enjoyment from talking to people
whose opinions are different from my own. I remember when I felt
threatened by conflicting points of view. Like any group of people, TM
people are not all one way. Some are smart as hell and some aren't, some
are very sweet natured and some are truely nasty. I don't see TM as
having improved this human reality. But to those people who were confused
by my public break with TM I invite you to contact me if you want to
reconnect. I'm not on a mission and have long ago given up the idea that
my view is the only right way to think. If you enjoy TM as I did for
years I certainly understand. I only offer my experience as an
alternative that you might want to consider. I was so sure of my position
while in TM, and in my case I was mistaken. My life without TM has
exceeded my expectations and I love my new life. But in some ways it is a
product of some very unique and interesting people who I met while in TM.
I wish all my old friends the best and invite anyone who remembers me in a
fond way to contact me.
Curtis Mailloux
Kurt Arbuckle
John A. Stanley (jsta...@gate.net) wrote:
: In article <19970204004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
: >My name is Curtis Mailloux. I meditated for 15 years and practiced the
: >sidhis for 10 years. In 1979 I graduated from M.I.U. and spent 3 years at
: >the Florida Sidha land rounding. After that I spent a year training to be
: >a teacher and tought TM as the Washington DC center chairman for one year.
I didn't see this post. Would someone please email it to me.
Kurt
Neoshoki
>> Curtis Mailloux was quoted as saying, sometime in the past:
>> "I was taught to lie and to get around the petty rules of the
>> 'unenlightened' in order to get favorable reports into the media," says
>> Mailloux. "We were taught how to exploit the reporters' gullibility and
>> fascination with the exotic, especially what comes from the East. We
>> thought we weren't doing anything wrong, because we were told it
>> was often necessary to deceive the unenlightened to advance our
>> guru's plan to save the world."
>
> Susan, the quoter, replies:
> I learned TM in 1968 and became a TM teacher in 1970 in India with
> Maharishi. I taught full-time from 1970 until 1986. During that time I
was
> involved in every phase of the movement, including Maharishi's
> international staff, Teacher Training, and advanced training of all
sorts.
>
> I never heard the phrase "SIMS Shuffle." Nor was I or anyone else I
> know ever instructed to "lie" or "get around the petty rules of the
> unenlightened." Nor was I or anyone I know ever told it was "neces-
> sary to deceive the unenlightened" for any reason, let alone "to
> advance our guru's plan to save the world." Ever.
And I must add my experience, which comes from a slightly differ-
ent perspective. I also started TM in 1968, became a teacher in
1972, and worked at various positions in TM hierarchy, including
the national center in Pacific Palisades. On the other hand, unlike
Susan, I no longer practice TM...I walked away from the TM move-
ment for my own personal reasons in 1981.
But the first time I ever heard the phrase "SIMS Shuffle" was on
this newsgroup. And, like Susan, I was never, in all my time with
the TM movement, instructed to lie or "get around the petty rules
of the unenlightened." Those who read my recent story about
how I reacted when some German course leader tried to usurp
my hotel room can well imagine how I would have reacted to
such suggestions. But there were none.
But I have also experienced the loss of TM friends who refused to
even acknowledge my existence once I went my own way, so I
can react with some empathy and compassion to Curtis' situation.
As for his testimony, as I said in a recent post about John Knapp,
memory is a funny thing. Recollection of the past cannot help but
be colored by the fleeting impressions and emotions of the present.
Welcome to the newsgroup, Curtis. I hope you bring with you no
agenda but the one you stated...
Barry Wright
"I like to reminisce with people I don't know."
- Steven Wright (no relation)
Judy Stein
But to those people who were confused
> by my public break with TM I invite you to contact me if you want to
> reconnect. I'm not on a mission and have long ago given up the idea that
> my view is the only right way to think. If you enjoy TM as I did for
> years I certainly understand. I only offer my experience as an
> alternative that you might want to consider. I was so sure of my position
> while in TM, and in my case I was mistaken.
Oh, come on, Curtis, don't be shy. Offer your experience here
where lots of folks can read it, and where those whose experience
has been very different can offer their own alternatives to be
considered along with yours. When you ask people to contact you
privately, where only your views will be given exposure, it
*does* make it sound as though you're on a mission, your
disclaimer notwithstanding.
Surely if your alternative experience is worth considering, it's
worth evaluating the pros and cons in public.
For instance, you were quoted in Andrew Skolnick's article in
JAMA as having said, "I was taught to lie and to get around the
petty rules of the `unenlightened' in order to get favorable
reports into the media....We were taught how to exploit the
reporters' gullibility and fascination with the exotic,
especially what comes from the East. We thought we weren't doing
anything wrong, because we were told it was often necessary to
deceive the unenlightened to advance our guru's plan to save the
world."
(Oh, yes, and you were described by Skolnick as "one of the
highest-ranking members to defect." Just how high would you say
you actually ranked in the movement, Curtis, by virtue of having
spent a year as chairman of the D.C. center?)
There's been some discussion here of the comment of yours quoted
by Andrew Skolnick. Here are two responses from long-time TM
teachers:
Although I [am] now dean at Cornell, for many years I was a
full-time TM teacher. I was never instructed in dealing with the
media (though most national organizations *do* offer such
instruction, it was, sadly, lacking in the TM orgaqnization).
Indeed, there was almost *no* training in dealing with the
public. The TM-EX contention that TMers are trained in such
things is so ludicrous it would be laughable were it not for the
transparency of their attempt to paint TM with a cultist brush.
--Jon Levy
I was active in SIMS; I taught TM in the '70s. In 1970 I was one
of the two full-time TM teachers in the whole New York-New Jersey
area, and throughout the '70s I taught full-time, attended
regular advanced courses with Maharishi, and was part of his
international staff. I never heard the expression the 'SIMS
shuffle' and neither learned nor practised deception of any sort
regarding TM. There was never a question of having anything to
hide. If you heard this from Curtis, he was practising a shuffle
of his own invention. A dance, perhaps?
--Susan Seifert
Perhaps you'd care to respond, Curtis? Or do you prefer all your
"nonmissionary" discussions of TM to take place in private where
they can't be countered by the views of such people as Susan and
Jon?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@ziplink.net +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cblues101
Thank you to all who responded to my note. I invite anyone to counter my
views and already have a healthy respect for the people who dug up past
quotes from articles quoting me. I will try to clarify a few points for
anyone who cares...
I have never sued the movement or been involved in anyone else's lawsuit
as Susan claimed. This is public record. I really enjoyed most of the
experiences I had with the movement. I just do not believe that the
claims made by maharishi are true. I had some unpleasant experiences with
the power of the organization over me but I take responsibility for
letting that happen to me. I was just 16 when I entered TM and did not
understand how to defend myself as I do now.
As far as being called one of the highest ranking members to defect, this
was Andrew's evaluation. I don't care if anyone views me as a past high
member whatever that means. I do claim that I had a very thorough
exposure to TM belief. When I reject it now I do claim to understand TM
doctrine as well as anyone in the group. If this were not the case then
maharishi's own university would be suspect.
The "simms shuffle" was a term coined by Jerry Jarvis and we joked about
it in 1979 when he tought a course at MIU. His experiences with the
movement including being written out of its history in movement
publications always seemed sad to me. I really liked Jerry and we had
some beautiful times.
As far as John Stanley's comment about me being a mood maker and off the
program I will say this... In the context of the India course I was able
to spend time with maharishi's Indian personal assistants. It was on
their reccomendation that I got a deerskin to sit on for the same reason
maharishi sits on one. In the TM belief system such practices are
considered to have a scientific basis in aiding meditation. I was living
with the group that became the purusha group after India and I can assure
you that I was not the only member to sit on one. I had a long discussion
with Nankashore about it and he was quite clear that it would be a benifit
to me and that maharishi would like to reccomend it more but the public
wouldn't go for it. It is an example of the different value systems in
the movement which cater to different people's intensity of interest. I
know such practices go in and out of favor at different times, do people
still wear beads to cultivate qualities?
The quote about how I claimed to have been encouraged to misrepresent the
movements teachings to the public has been used many times to say that if
I lied then, I must be a liar now. It is a variation of an attack on my
charactor to discredit other claims. I do not doubt that other teachers
were not put in this position. I was talking about my own experience.
Actually it is funny to me because lying for the movement was so petty
compared to the actions which I was asked to perform by people over me in
the movement. Any examples of illegal activities would be easily
countered with the "once a liar, always a lier" line.
The more important point I was trying to make to the interviewer was that
the movement does not disclose the full truth to new meditators and
consciously hides aspects of its teaching which it feels would turn off
the public. As you get higher and higher in the organization it is
revealed little by little. This is not a practice which I feel is fair to
the public. Hiding the true beliefs about maharishi and the inner
teachings of the movement is reflexive for teachers and this reflex was
trained very carefully. "the wise should not delude the ignorant" gita
quote was the justification I was given. I am puzzeled by teachers who
claim that they never experienced this.
Well again, thank you to all who took the time to respond. I actually had
intended to get in touch with old friends this way rather than debate but
on Judy's kind invitation I will post again to see what your response is
to some claims of my own about maharishi's teaching. I think that the
spirit Judy's note conveyed showed an openess to free thought that
reminded me of the best times at MIU.
Best Wishes,
Curtis Mailloux
Stokes Dickins
On 4 Feb 1997 00:44:33 GMT, cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
>My name is Curtis Mailloux. I meditated for 15 years and practiced the
>sidhis for 10 years. In 1979 I graduated from M.I.U. and spent 3 years at
>the Florida Sidha land rounding. After that I spent a year training to be
>a teacher and tought TM as the Washington DC center chairman for one year.
>
>In 1989 I studied a few different perspectives about the experiences I was
>having with TM that shifted my interpretation of my personal experience.
>This led me to discontinuing the practice, and I have not done any of the
>program for the last 8 years. In the last 8 years my life has grown in
>many ways and I truely believe that TM was holding me back from growth
>rather than enhancing it. I did enjoy the experiences I had with TM, but
>now see it as a form of fantasy rather than a profound insight into true
>reality.
I think the point you bring up here is very important. I believe
that the TM technique like tooth brushing is a good way to start the
day. But, I have come to think that it is possible to practice the
technique and have a heyday with the magical thinking that is
ubiquitious in our times. To the extent that magical thinking
interferes with rigorous engagement in goal oriented activity, I can
see where a person in developing a new level of maturity and focusing
on new areas of interest could achieve a feeling of "flow" that is
superior to the former dreamy state.
Some people who practice TM come to that moment and after a number of
years of being closely involved with TM activities decide to pursue a
different course. Doing so doesn't mean that they stop practicing TM.
In fact, they may find that they enjoy the benefits of doing TM even
more since they have become focused on some very rewarding activity.
I'm not suggesting that you are mistaken in your choice. Obviously
you feel that stopping TM was good for you. Probably just as
obviously, I can't begin to imagine what you could have read that
would bring you to that conclusion. TM EX, perhaps?
I didn't mean by any means to imply that people who work for the TM
movement are in a fog of magical thinking. Not at all. Some of the
smartest, most creative, productive people I know have worked for the
TM organization for years.
I have read the combative nature of most discussions with ex
>members.
Have you noticed the ones that are non-combative. Is it combative of
me to ask? I'm really like to talk to ex-TMers and if I'm being
offensive, please let me know.
I came under a lot of direct attack when I left the movement
>from people I had viewed as friends. I do not find TM to have developed
>this group's members into a special group in any way
What "group's members"? The thing I've always noticed about the
people I know who practice TM is that hardly any two of them agree
about anything. Talk about self-actualization. Self-actualization to
the extreme. Even so, sometimes I make the mistake of thinking, "We
both do TM so, of course, we'll agree on such and such." Not so.
Then we have to quickly decide: "Can we have a friendly,
disagreement or shall we move on to something else?." I don't think
that's different for people who practice TM and people who don't.
Some people have such strong ideas about a variety of subjects that
the one to whom they are speaking just let's them have their say, not
wanting to get into a vigorous debate. Other subjects that are not so
emotionally charged can be discussed at length, sharing differing
points of view. I don't think this has anything to do with whether or
not you started your day with a few minutes of deep rest.
Some people I know who practice TM often associate more with people
who don't practice TM because they share a particular interest like:
a breed of dogs, or astronomy, or English country dancing, etc.
Others, if they work closely with the TM organization, are friends
with the people they work with. I don't think that's peculiar to the
TM organization. When people are working together, they often form
close friendships with people of like mind.
I know that as a
>member I believed that I was becoming spiritual and special. I do not see
>increased compassion in this group, and most intellectual discussions
>about TM with ex members seems to digress into ad hominin attacks to
>discredit the person rather than to discuss what is being debated.
Maybe compassion or lack thereof is in the eye of the beholder.
>
>So why am I posting this message? I want to give past friends a chance to
>contact me if they want to.
A recent tally of lurkers of a.m.t. turned up less than 20. No one
has any idea how many people on any given day reads a.m.t. I've been
posting for months now and I've received 1 e-mail from a friend I
hadn't seen in several years. I just memtion this to say that if you
don't get a response it could very well mean that the people you wish
to communicate with didn't see your post. I don't know anywhere near
all the people in Fairfield who practice TM, but the ones I know
didn't know what a.m.t. was before I told them and didn't look like
they had any interest whatsoever after I told them.<laugh>
Because I now believe that the maharishi is
>mistaken about reality did not make me hate my past friends.
They probably didn't hate you either. But, they might feel really
uncomfortable about the popularity you enjoyed when you started saying
things about TM that they might have considered misleading.
I found that
>many TM friends became hostile about my new position and my willingness to
>talk to the press about my perspective. I was hurt by this for a while
>but time heals all wounds and I hope that goes both ways. Every once in a
>while I am surprised by a phone call from a member who can relate to me in
>a human way with the ability to disagree about this one area of life.
It might be helpful if you would refrain from referring to people who
enjoy the practice of TM as "a member".
I
>have had great discussions with some people who were able to enjoy
>intellectual discussions without having to get nasty about my different
>opinions.
One of the best things to have come out of me leaving this
>group
(Believe me, saying group and member is an irritant to someone who is
a fiercely, independent person who practices TM.) (This is just
feedback, not an argry retort.)
is that I have developed a real enjoyment from talking to people
>whose opinions are different from my own
By saying that do you mean to suggest that no person who practices TM
ever enjoys talking to people with differing opinions? :-) Not angry,
just asking, pianissimo not forte.
<laugh>I'm just flashing back to the day alot of people from Fairfield
were at the State Capital expressing their opinions to the Department
of Natural Resources on the subject of a proposed medical waste
incinerator that was planned for a nearby town. There were alot of
other people there that day who were expressing their concerns about
large scale hog operations. Though alot people who live in Fairfield
and do TM choose not to eat red meat, we were deeply moved by the
issues and concerns of the farmers who operate smaller, more
environmentally friendly hog farms.
I remember when I felt
>threatened by conflicting points of view. Like any group of people, TM
>people are not all one way.
Excellent observation, and not everyone who practices TM feels
threatened by conflicting points of view. OTOH, TMers may be quick to
object if they think that someone is giving out information about TM
that is distorted and in their opinion, not accurate.
Some are smart as hell and some aren't, some
>are very sweet natured and some are truely nasty. I don't see TM as
>having improved this human reality.
That statement is not exactly what I would call a bridge building
statement if you're sending out an olive branch to old TM friends,
IMHO. I could be wrong.
Your last statement is OTOH something that people who know alot of
people who practice TM have pondered with some real interest. I know
I have. I've wondered about myself. How can I be so nice at times
and truly annoying in some situations? My daughter says I'm annoying.
I think that's what 12 year olds are supposed to say. She usually
says it with an impish grin.
This is what I've come up with. TM is a preparation for activity.
Once you get on the scene of activity, lots of things come into play:
what you ate and how well you digested it, do you have the gene for
being a happy person, did you come from a mostly functional or mostly
dysfunctional family, are you happy with what you're doing in life,
are you skilled in doing what you believe is right, etc., etc. So,
IMO, that there's a wide range in nice and nastiness amoung people who
practice TM is not unusual. People who practice TM are just people
living their life like everybody else, trying to do the best they can.
Sometimes the results are more pleasing than other times. People
who continue with the TM practice certainly believe that doing TM
helps to tip the balance in favor of succeeding in happily managing
life. If believing that keeps them from gaining the necessary skills
to do whatever it is they want to do in life, they could be in for
some disappointment. Informed, individual responsibility is a real
winner whether or not one practices TM. On Dejanews, you will see
what TM plus individual responsibility looks like in Stanley
Reisberg's TM story. On http://www.tm.org/ there are other stories of
people who combine TM plus individual responsibility in a very
satisfactory way in the TM Book by Robert Roth which can be read
online.
But to those people who were confused
>by my public break with TM I invite you to contact me if you want to
>reconnect. I'm not on a mission and have long ago given up the idea that
>my view is the only right way to think. If you enjoy TM as I did for
>years I certainly understand. I only offer my experience as an
>alternative that you might want to consider.
Why? Would you be open to their offer of their continuing experience
with TM as an alternative you might want to consider. (not said
angrily, just normal tone.)
I was so sure of my position
>while in TM, and in my case I was mistaken.
While you say this is a letter to old friends, it has some flavor of
soft-sell mission about it. I guess you could say, "It takes one to
know one."
My life without TM has
>exceeded my expectations and I love my new life.
Again, this may be a thought that you hold dear to your heart. It's
value as an olive branch is dubious. Alot of people who have chosen
to practice TM have had to get used to people giving the feeling, "I
like you, but not your TM". It's easier to live with when you think,
"They just don't know what TM is". It's harder when it comes from
someone who says, "Yeah, I liked it, but I like it better without it."
It can create some strong dissonance with all the experiences they are
familiar with of people practicing TM. I know it does with me, and I
only know your name from reading the your name in newspaper clips.
But in some ways it is a
>product of some very unique and interesting people
(whose attractiveness might have had something to do with the fact
that they had settled down that morning to some quiet place, dissolved
some stress, felt invigorated and happy and were enjoying your company
in a very open, comfortable mood. Just a thought you might want to
consider, then again maybe you don't want to consider it. It's okay,
one way or the other.)
who I met while in TM.
>I wish all my old friends the best and invite anyone who remembers me in a
>fond way to contact me.
I suggest that an ad in the Source, a newsy local paper with a wide
circulation might have a possibility of reaching more friends than
posting on a.m.t. OTOH, AT&T directory assistance might be the best
source. Please, don't be put off by my response to your post if I
have annoyed you. After all, I only know you from the newspaper.
Your name did stick in my mind and I have wondered how you came to say
what you have about TM. I am pleased at last to make your
acquaintance out here in cyberspace. I wish you all happiness and joy
in life.
Regards,
Barbara
Susan Seifert
In article <19970204004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
> My name is Curtis Mailloux. I meditated for 15 years and practiced the
> sidhis for 10 years. In 1979 I graduated from M.I.U. and spent 3 years at
> the Florida Sidha land rounding. After that I spent a year training to be
> a teacher and tought TM as the Washington DC center chairman for one year.
>
> In 1989 I studied a few different perspectives about the experiences I was
> having with TM that shifted my interpretation of my personal experience.
> This led me to discontinuing the practice, and I have not done any of the
> program for the last 8 years. In the last 8 years my life has grown in
> many ways and I truely believe that TM was holding me back from growth
> rather than enhancing it. I did enjoy the experiences I had with TM, but
> now see it as a form of fantasy rather than a profound insight into true
> reality. I have read the combative nature of most discussions with ex
> members. I came under a lot of direct attack when I left the movement
> from people I had viewed as friends. I do not find TM to have developed
> this group's members into a special group in any way. I know that as a
> member I believed that I was becoming spiritual and special. I do not see
> increased compassion in this group, and most intellectual discussions
> about TM with ex members seems to digress into ad hominin attacks to
> discredit the person rather than to discuss what is being debated.
>
Here is an interesting quote--the last two paragraphs of Andrew Skolnick's
article, "Maharishi Ayur-Veda: Guru's Marketing Scheme Promises the World
Eternal 'Perfect Health'" in the JAMA Oct. 2, 1991 issue:
"Ex-members say that the movement widely practices a style of deception
some call the "SIMS shuffle." Curtis Maillous, a former member who lives in
Fairfax, VA, says the name is derived from the Student [sic] International
Meditation Society, one of the Maharishi's front groups, where many members
develop this skill. Mailloux says he "left the cult" in 1989 after 15
years. As a former TM teacher and chair of the TM center in Washington, DC,
the largest in the United States, he is one of the highest ranking members
to defect.
"I was taught to lie and to get around the petty rules of the
'unenlightened' in order to get favorable reports into the media," says
Mailloux. "We were taught how to exploit the reporters' gullibility and
fascination with the exotic, especially what comes from the East. We
thought we weren't doing anything wrong, because we were told it was often
necessary to deceive the unenlightened to advance our guru's plan to save
the world."
I learned TM in 1968 and became a TM teacher in 1970 in India with
Maharishi. I taught full-time from 1970 until 1986. During that time I was
involved in every phase of the movement, including Maharishi's
international staff, Teacher Training, and advanced training of all sorts.
I never heard the phrase "SIMS Shuffle." Nor was I or anyone else I know
ever instructed to "lie" or "get around the petty rules of the
unenlightened." Nor was I or anyone I know ever told it was "necessary to
deceive the unenlightened" for any reason, let alone "to advance our guru's
plan to save the world." Ever.
If Curtis believes his own assertions of lying and deception, he indeed was
involved "in a form of fantasy" when he was active in the movement, because
those things never occurred.
Perhaps Curtis "came under a lot of direct attack" from people he regarded
as his friends, not because he decided TM wasn't for him, but because his
representations of the movement were so at variance with their experiences
that they could only conclude he was a liar. Also, I may be mistaken but I
seem to recall that Curtis sued the movement at the time he "shifted [his]
interpretation of [his] personal experience." Litigation is not generally
viewed as a friendly act. This may further explain the lack of "compassion"
among his old friends that seems to have bewildered and dismayed Curtis.
I also dislike the combatative tone in this newsgroup. However, it is
completely understandable given the nature of unfounded and completely
ridiculous misrepresentations found here against TM. Were someone to accuse
Curtis--falsely--of being a child molester, murderer, bigamist, thief, and
arsonist instead of just a liar, perhaps he would understand the disgust
many feel.
This is not a case of "true believers" defending their guru or any such
nonsense. It's a case of people who are outraged at blatant lies.
********************
Susan Seifert
su...@fairfield.com
********************
EdMeasure
Curtis: I have no problem with anything you say - I find pretty much the
case to be so. I never choose to become discursive about any single word
or even sentence, as this "off the cuff" internet communication is always
open to some misunderstanding if the reader chooses to search for some.
However, there is just one thing I don't understand? Though what you say
is pretty much so, nevertheless, why quit the movement? It takes people
like you to change those areas of behavior which may not be ideal, to a
better way of doing things. There is always a reason of how and why
things got started to get to where we are now. Simply, the TM
organization is huge and sluggish, in fact, something like the vatican
almost, even suppressing the truth. Until we all have plenty of holy
spirit flowing our way, much of the time, this uneasiness will continue.
You are right. Now is the time to hit the problem head on. Folks all
over are compalining that they have no "experiences". Once we can say
holy spirit and soma, without choking up, were at least off to a good
start. Join us again, i.e., as an active, pro TMer.
jai guru dev - ed
re:below>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Subject: Re: Hello to old TM friends
From: cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101)
Date: 4 Feb 1997 22:05:43 GMT
Message-ID: <19970204220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Susan Seifert
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
I recall Maharishi's use of the phrase "the wise do not confuse the
ignorant." My interpretation is somewhat different than yours. I
understand his instruction to mean that we teach each subject in its own
time, that we stay on topic, and that we teach what is useful to the
student. I do not consider that deceptive, but simply an essential
teaching skill.
It is not and was not my experience that Maharishi/the movement tries to
hide anything. So far as hiding aspects of the teaching "which it feels
would turn off the public," I can't think of anything more inner--and
more of a turn-off to the public--than the flying demonstrations, which
the movement has held repeatedly with much fanfare.
Regarding "true beliefs" about Maharishi, what specifically do you mean?
In my experience, every person I know has a different belief about
Maharishi and just about anything else you could name.
>
> Well again, thank you to all who took the time to respond. I actually had
> intended to get in touch with old friends this way rather than debate but
> on Judy's kind invitation I will post again to see what your response is
> to some claims of my own about maharishi's teaching. I think that the
> spirit Judy's note conveyed showed an openess to free thought that
> reminded me of the best times at MIU.
> Best Wishes,
> Curtis Mailloux
Previously, Curtis wrote:
>In 1989 I studied a few different perspectives about the experiences I was
>having with TM that shifted my interpretation of my personal experience.
>This led me to discontinuing the practice, and I have not done any of the
>program for the last 8 years.
I'm curious about the studies you pursued that made you reframe your TM
experiences.
>In the last 8 years my life has grown in
>many ways and I truely believe that TM was holding me back from growth
>rather than enhancing it. I did enjoy the experiences I had with TM, but
>now see it as a form of fantasy rather than a profound insight into true
>reality.
I'm happy for you that you have achieved growth in your life.
It sounds as if you had an all-consuming involvement with TM and the
organization and I can understand that it is sometimes better to move on
to something else. However, the technique of TM is one thing, heavy
involvement with the TM movement and the mind-set some people adopt as
part of that is another thing altogether. I won't comment on the
mind-set, what it is and/or whether it is promulgated by the movement or
something individuals create themselves. However, I wonder if you
separate the two things in your mind or just lump them together.
Either way, I respect whichever way you find the most growth and
happiness. Life is invincible and will always find a way to bring us to
wholeness, whether through TM or through another avenue.
Regards,
Susan
Stokes Dickins
Curtis writes:
I really enjoyed most of the
>experiences I had with the movement. I just do not believe that the
>claims made by maharishi are true. I had some unpleasant experiences with
>the power of the organization over me but I take responsibility for
>letting that happen to me. I was just 16 when I entered TM and did not
>understand how to defend myself as I do now.
>
Thanks for telling us more about your experience. Now, I can see how
we could have such different opinions. What sold me on TM at the
introductory lecture was the claim that the TM technique was an
efficient, systematic way of gaining deep rest. When I learned TM,
and my first meditation forever redefined the meaning of deep rest, I
became a satisfied customer. From that day until this, I have always
thought in terms of just how much people would enjoy the technique and
that it could make a difference in so many ways.
One elderly gentleman in a study on TM and blood pressure said, "I'm
not as irritable." I think that's a fine experience with TM.
I am pleased with the results of practicing TM. I see the TM
movement as the means by which people will learn TM. It would never
cross my mind to call it a cult. When I read that you call it a
cult, I didn't hate you. I did feel sad that many people who took
your word for it would probably not learn to rest efficiently and
systematically and smile more easily and have a way to get rid of
stress instead of having it accumulate, making them feel older than
they need to.
In my 25 years of practicing TM, there have been people and happenings
in the TM organization that I have loved and some that I hoped would
get better soon. I think the potential for the practice of TM to have
a positive impact on life has just barely begun to be explored.
Good luck on your search for old friends. I called an old friend the
other day that I met 28 years ago and hadn't talked to in 5 years.
She said, "Didn't you feel funny calling up after 5 years?: I hadn't
until she said that.<laugh>I said, "No, not at all." She sounded
great. She learned TM, but didn't stick with it. She didn't go
around telling newspapers the TM movement was a cult though. ;-)
She's accomplished alot in her career, and she's a terrific person.
She'll always be a favorite with me.
BTW, I read in a newspaper clip that Jerry Jarvis is still practicing
TM. He'll always be a favorite TM person to me, too.
Regards,
Barbara
Judy Stein
In article <19970204220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
<snip>
> As far as being called one of the highest ranking members to defect, this
> was Andrew's evaluation.
Yes, that's pretty much what we figured. Andrew didn't bother to
explain that center chairpersons are relatively low in the TM
hierarchy, TM centers being local operations that are run largely
independently of the organization per se. "Chairman of the D.C.
center" sounds so much more impressive if you don't know that, so
he was careful not to inform his readers that your ranking, even
if it was at that time "one of the highest" for a defector,
wasn't really all that high.
I don't care if anyone views me as a past high
> member whatever that means.
Would you say Andrew's characterization of you might have the
effect of leading his readers to assume you were a real big shot,
and thus grant you an extra measure of credibility? Why would it
be perfectly acceptable to you if JAMA's readers assumed you had
a more important role in the TM organization than you actually
did?
Quite a few similar partial truths have been identified in
Skolnick's article (which has been discussed extensively on this
newsgroup, which is why some of us have it right to hand rather
than having to go "dig it up"); this is, in fact, one of the
least significant. I would imagine you must have been dismayed
when you read the article, considering your interest in full
disclosure, right?
I do claim that I had a very thorough
> exposure to TM belief. When I reject it now I do claim to understand TM
> doctrine as well as anyone in the group. If this were not the case then
> maharishi's own university would be suspect.
Not necessarily. But I certainly look forward to evaluating your
understanding of "TM doctrine."
<snip>
> The quote about how I claimed to have been encouraged to misrepresent the
> movements teachings to the public has been used many times to say that if
> I lied then, I must be a liar now. It is a variation of an attack on my
> charactor to discredit other claims.
Actually, some of us wonder whether you were lying to Andrew
about having lied then, given that other TM teachers had nothing
like the experiences you report. Or perhaps Andrew did not quote
you accurately? Because what you're saying now doesn't seem to
quite match up with the quote in the article.
Unfortunately, it's not just your statements quoted in Andrew's
article that have given some of us pause. It seems virtually any
time an article critical of TM appears, you're quoted in it. I
don't think I've seen one such statement yet that I would
consider accurate or fair.
For instance, in the Washington Post (July 30, 1993) you were
quoted as having said Maharishi uses science "as a marketing
tool, in the same way that 'three out of four dentists surveyed'
sells toothpaste but is not science."
Now, I'm not a big fan of the inflated claims TM sometimes makes
for its scientific evidence, and it certainly does use science as
a marketing tool, but your dismissal is rather too sweeping,
don't you think? Not all the TM research is of high quality, but
a considerable amount of it has managed to pass peer review and
appear in independent scientific journals. Would you really say
these peer reviewers were unable to recognize a "three out of
four dentists surveyed" type of statement as not being
scientific?
What do you think, if I may ask, of the "German study" on the
purportedly negative effects of TM that is so highly touted on
Trancenet by your former TM-teacher colleague, John Knapp? Do
you consider that study science?
I do not doubt that other teachers
> were not put in this position. I was talking about my own experience.
And yet you said, according to Skolnick, "*We* were taught how to
exploit the reporters' gullibility....*We* were told it was often
necessary to deceive the unenlightened...." He quotes you
indirectly as having said "many members [of SIMS] develop this
skill" (of lying). Did he misquote you, or are you now backing
off what you said to him?
> Actually it is funny to me because lying for the movement was so petty
> compared to the actions which I was asked to perform by people over me in
> the movement. Any examples of illegal activities would be easily
> countered with the "once a liar, always a lier" line.
Let's hear about these actions compared to which lying for the
movement was petty.
> The more important point I was trying to make to the interviewer was that
> the movement does not disclose the full truth to new meditators and
> consciously hides aspects of its teaching which it feels would turn off
> the public. As you get higher and higher in the organization it is
> revealed little by little. This is not a practice which I feel is fair to
> the public. Hiding the true beliefs about maharishi and the inner
> teachings of the movement is reflexive for teachers and this reflex was
> trained very carefully. "the wise should not delude the ignorant" gita
> quote was the justification I was given.
There is no such quote in the Gita. Maybe you're thinking of
III:29, "Let not him who knows the whole disturb the ignorant who
know only the part." MMY comments, "If an ignorant man tries to
copy the state of the enlightened in his own life, then he will
create confusion in his behavior, and his action may fall into a
pattern in which the validity of good and evil in the field of
practical life is undermined." Hardly seems like a justification
for deception, does it?
Or perhaps you're referring to III:26, "Let not the wise man
create a division in the minds of the ignorant, who are attached
to action. Established in Being, he should direct them to
perform all actions, duly engaging in them himself." MMY
comments, "The state of a realized man is the result of many
years of inner development founded on right values in
life....Although his Being is above the realms of right and
wrong, his actions are quite naturally right actions. He is
advised in this verse to allow the ignorant man to do his duty."
Boy, I can't make that into a justification for deception either.
Both verses have to do with the automatic interaction of the
gunas as the author of action, which is the experience of the
enlightened person. The "ignorant," in contrast, experience
themselves as the originators of action. MMY writes, "Teach
Transcendental Meditation to the ignorant man so that he may
engage himself in subtler phases of activity and thereby realize
the transcendent Being, the Self, in Its true nature as devoid of
any activity. Teach him that, having gained this realization, he
should continue to act in daily life so that it may become firmly
established in the very nature of his mind. And then set him an
example by `duly engaging' in actions yourself....`All actions'
should not be taken to include wrong actions.'"
I am puzzeled by teachers who
> claim that they never experienced this.
One wonders whether you had the misfortune to run into a bad
interpreter of MMY's teaching, or whether you perhaps
misunderstood what you were taught. Did you never go to the Gita
to check the context?
> on Judy's kind invitation I will post again to see what your
> response is to some claims of my own about maharishi's teaching.
Please do.
In any case, the "more important point" you say you were
attempting to convey to Skolnick seems of a rather different
order than what Skolnick reported you as having said, "I was
taught to lie and to get around the petty rules of the
`unenlightened'....We were taught how to exploit the reporters'
gullibility....We thought we weren't doing anything wrong,
because we were told it was often necessary to deceive the
unenlightened to advance our guru's plan to save the world."
I'm having trouble reconciling this with what you describe above,
i.e., not revealing every last bit of the TM teachings to the
beginning TMer right off the bat, but giving them enough
information to practice TM on their own, allowing them to
encounter more details as and if their interest moves them.
Above, you characterize the deerskin business as "an example of
the different value systems in the movement which cater to
different people's intensity of interest."
Other than that the term "value systems" is rather misleading,
given that these sorts of things are considered to have
*practical* rather than ethical value, I would agree, the
movement *does* cater to different people's intensity of
interest.
Why is this deceptive? How does it amount to "deceiving the
unenlightened"? TMers are not coerced into increasing the
intensity of their interest. People's level of interest is
determined by the resonance of the movement's "inner teachings"
with their own outlook as they encounter them. As long as there
is resonance, their interest will be maintained; at the point
where it becomes jarring, their interest reaches its limit. They
become involved only to the extent they are comfortable with the
teachings.
Moreover, their discovery of deeper levels of the teachings is
motivated by their interest in the first place. In other words,
as they demonstrate interest, more of the "inner teaching" is
made available to them--as much (or as little) as they find
resonant.
Does a "poet's physics" course confront the student with every
last complexity and confounding paradox of quantum mechanics, or
does it give an elementary overview, assuming that if the student
is interested, s/he will go on to take more advanced courses? Is
this unfair to the student? Does it amount to deception or
catering to gullibility? Does it amount to "hiding" the "inner
teachings" of quantum mechanics?
Or does it simply amount to catering to different people's
intensity of interest?
In what way is someone who learns TM, finds the introductory
level of the TM teaching in the three days of checking--other
than the instructions for meditation--of little interest, and
goes off on his/her own to practice because s/he likes the
results, never being motivated to explore the teachings further,
being deceived?
What is it, exactly, that you're talking about here, Curtis?
Skolnick quotes you as saying, "We were taught how to exploit the
reporters' gullibility and fascination with the exotic,
especially what comes from the East."
Interestingly, in the affidavit from former MIU professor Anthony
Denaro published on Trancenet, he quotes the minutes of a meeting
of the President's Council of May 1975 (while you were still a
TMer):
All Indian objects will be removed from the Bookstore. It was
felt by members of the Council that MIU must project a
conservative image that is, as Jon Shapiro put it, "as American
as apple pie." We should be "supersensitive" to what we are doing
and it should be a matter of policy that we do not have anything
Indian in the Store.
I recall seeing a talk show in 1975 on which Keith Wallace and
Harold Bloomfield were the guests. The producer had chosen sitar
music to bridge the segments. The guests objected vigorously
that this was misleading, since TM was just as approprite for
Westerners as Easterners and didn't necessitate surrounding
oneself with Indian trappings.
Care to comment on these seeming contradictions, Curtis?
> I think that the
> spirit Judy's note conveyed showed an openess to free thought that
> reminded me of the best times at MIU.
Funny, the other anti-TMers here consider me the truest of True
Believers. But I am indeed interested to hear some specifics
from you; it's difficult to engage in "free thought" about vague
generalities and insinuations.
Cblues101
Thanks to Susan, Barbara, and Ed.
I think Barbara may be right about the small cyberworld of meditators this
group represents. I think it was nice of you guys to respond and I am
learning about how meditators have integrated TM into diverse lives. I
enjoyed your points about me overgeneralizing about meditators having one
belief. Considering the aging demographic that is in the movement I think
I was being a little simplistic and Barbara's point is well taken. It did
sound a little offensive when I read it back from the new perspective you
gave me. The people practicing the TM program has changed in many ways
since I was involved and I am enjoying the update. Also I was most
closely associated with a specific group in the movement, the purusha
mentality, and this is only a small representation of TM people as a
whole. I think there is enough shared beliefs to warrent calling it a
group still but with the awareness of its differences.
Susan mentioned that I have replaced an all consuming involvement in TM
and predictibly my life is better. Good point. I do believe that if
maharishi was correct in his world view that such fixity would be
warrented. In other wordsI have found that most happy meditators seem to
have contextualized their practice so that it doesn't interfere with their
life too much. This is much like most religious people who are careful
not to let their religious life get out of hand. This is not what I
always understood from maharishi who always seemed to egg us on to more
and more involvement. I just took him literally about enlightenment and
he even gave me specific predictions about when certain results would
manifest if I would join certain programs. This is how I ended up at
Sidha land in Fla. The promise was that 3 years of rounding and we would
master the sidhis. So I believed him and it was to my detriment. It
still seems funny that the people with the most involvement with TM and
maharishi himself are not the ones who seem to express the most qualities
promised by TM. I would think it would be the opposite. Anyway maharishi
speaks to each group differentely and the things he told the single men
led us to believe that we were on the fastest path. Now it seems
laughable but I was not encouraged to doubt his word. I recognize from
the strong reactions I got to my interviews that there are very separate
movements within TM and each one has a separate framework. Also
meditators outside the insulated worlds I was in tend to have less
homogonous beliefs. Within small communities within the movement the
beliefs tend to get more similar especially if you separate the sexes. I
will never allow my life to be cut off from woman's wisdom or bodies
again. It is wierd how maharishi encouraged that shankara antagonistic
view within the all male group I was in. It is a dirty secret and I am
surprised women in the movement haven't called him on the things he tells
the men when they are together. Probably the woman have a similar
experience of their own with him.
This post is long already so I'll answer the question about how my
perspective changed so much next time. About my lack of openness to
practicing TM again I am afraid that I have done all the TM I needed in
the 15 years I practiced. I think that was a fair test of maharishi's
theory. I did all the programs he directed me to do with sincere
intentions so I think I gave it as fair a shot as I could.
Finally I will say that although I have been associated with TM EX in the
press, this is not a group I belong to. In fact I never thought of it as
a group at all. I am not opposed to the individuals who work under that
name. I think their intention was to get an alternative view across to
people in the movement and I admire thier courage. I purposely avoided
even getting thier newsletter or being on any list of theirs because I
though it was run by people involved in lawsuits and I knew this would
seriously diminish my credibility with any friends still in TM. I
discovered them after I had lost my ability to believe in TM thoery..
That is not to say that their lawsuits had no merrit, or that the
information they provided didn't help me sort out my feelings. I felt
differently about my experiences with TM and did not want sue the
movement.
Thanks to all who wrote.
Curtis Mailloux
Steve Guich
Hi Curtis.
Haven't seen you since graduation in '79. I remember your smiling face
around campus and still have very warm thoughts of those days. And man,
you played a mean harp!
I remember your name coming up around '85 when I ran into Kekuni. I think
you were in Austin? Anyway, I hadn't heard anything about you until I saw
your name on amt about a year ago. I drop in to read amt every now and
then to see if there is anything of interest. Mostly I find the acrimony
and posturing a waste of time and so I rarely post here. I have enjoyed
Barbara Stokes' posts, and support a standard of tone and character she is
setting here.
But seeing you here brings me out to say hi. It puts me into a really
nice space, thinking about cherished past times.
I caught your original post and then the following response to your second
post, and thought I'd delurk to offer my take on one of your points. Most
of the rest of your post I simply accept and respect as your
interpretation of your experience.
Everyone's experience is a function of their subjective state. I suspect
that there are others who share your interpretations. However, what you
describe is not at all resonant in MY experience. And there are many
others who also differ with your interpretations. (FWIW- I do tend to
agree with Susan Seifert's interpretation of the "wise not delude the
ignorant" quote from Maharishi.)
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Susan Seifert wrote:
> cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
...snip...
> > The "simms shuffle" was a term coined by Jerry Jarvis and we joked about
> > it in 1979 when he tought a course at MIU. His experiences with the
> > movement including being written out of its history in movement
> > publications always seemed sad to me. I really liked Jerry and we had
> > some beautiful times.
I was in that one month class in SCI that Jerry taught at MIU in June,
1979. A GREAT course.
Jerry always embodied the heart and (especially) mind of a seeker. His
goal in that course was to have us delve deeply into the core of
Maharishi's teachings with the purpose of "owning" that knowledge.
Everyone loved Jerry's honesty and fervent pursuit of knowledge. I don't
think anyone was disappointed in the class, to say the least.
I speak with Jerry fairly regularly, and so asked him today about this
"sims shuffle" term that you attribute to him. I presumed that if there
was such a term, knowing Jerry, it couldn't mean what the Skolnick article
(referencing you in it's use) implied - the encouragement of dishonesty.
He said that term was completely unfamiliar to him. In his good-natured
way, he said that his principle of lecturing was that if a potential
student didn't start TM, that it was the responsibility of the lecturer in
not having conveyed the full value of the teaching.
Jerry, in my experience over 18 years, would never advocate lying or
deceit. He is a true seeker and values the pursuit of that which is "true"
above all else. He is also a great advocate (as you may know or remember
from the class) of the principle of "repeated inquiry" (excerpt from MMY on
the BG ch4, v34):
The second point in the process of reaching enlightenment
is that the intellect should be alert, so that discrimination,
or the ability to understand different aspects of Reality, is
sharp. This is necessary because the state of full enlightenment
includes a clear understanding of Reality, and this can only be
be accomplished by an intellect which is alert and sharp,
discriminating and decisive. The state of intellectual alertness
conflicts with the state of submission. This conflict is
resolved by what the Lord calls 'service'.
I quoted this to point out the emphasis that Maharishi's commentary places
on the need to personally *connect* to the knowledge, to "*question*
authority", so that the knowledge of that authority can be truly gained
and owned. Jerry is a intense advocate of this approach.
Too often, in all walks of life, it is easier to just accept something
than to truly interrogate it, so as to really own it. And often those who
accept that which is not deeply interrogated and evaluated against their
own experiences and understanding, their own morals and goals, wind up
with far less than what is offered them. Sometimes what they "take" is
180 degrees opposite from what was offered. For Python fans, one of my
all-time favorite movie scenes is from Monty Python's "Life of Brian",
when one group thinks the "answer" is in following the principle of "one
shoe", while the the other group follows the gourd. (Anyone who hasn't
seen this irreverent poke at man's desire to be "lead", has a real treat
in store). Was this a mock of religion, or a mock of mindless acceptance
of principles (misunderstood or otherwise) in the name and justification
of religion?
...snip...
> > spirit Judy's note conveyed showed an openess to free thought that
> > reminded me of the best times at MIU.
> > Best Wishes,
> > Curtis Mailloux
There were some great times there. STILL some great times happening
there! Thanks for the reminder.
And best to you man - really! Hi to anyone you are in touch with. Life
is great!
Steve
*****************************
| Steven M. Guich, PhD. |
| Brain Imaging Center |
| UC Irvine |
| sgu...@brains.bic.uci.edu |
*****************************
TurquoiseB
I must commend both Curtis, for following through on his claim
of wanting open, non-antagonistic discussion, and Judy, for
responding to it (so far) in kind. It has been an unusually
fascinating thread.
About the only thing I have to contribute to it has to do with the
issue of what appears in print re these issues. As Judy says,
"Unfortunately, it's not just your statements quoted in Andrew's
article that have given some of us pause. It seems virtually any
time an article critical of TM appears, you're quoted in it. I
don't think I've seen one such statement yet that I would
consider accurate or fair."
Here I must agree with her completely. But I lay the blame, if
there is one, on 1) the reporters themselves, and 2) the methods
that anti-TMers use to take advantage of the reporters. What
happens is that the anti-<pick your "cult">-folks put together
some damning information and approach a few papers. Things
get printed. Every time an article gets printed, it goes into a
manila folder that is presented to the _next_ reporter along the
line, who looks through it and figures that if it got printed once
and no one got sued, then he can print it, too. _His_ article
goes into the manila folder. So it goes, the folder getting bigger
with each stop on the "press junket," the quotes proliferating
like rats.
In other words, it's not just TM teachers who are aware of, to
quote Curtis, "how to exploit the reporters' gullibility and fascin-
ation with the exotic." I don't think there's a reporter in the uni-
verse who doesn't secretly dream of winning a Pulitzer, and if
someone walks in the door carrying a manila folder that seems
to present an opportunity for a juicy "expose" article -- the kind
that Pulitzers are awarded for -- he or she may tend to start
out on the assignment with a point of view that then colors
everything else the reporter finds out on his or her own.
Just my .02...
Barry Wright
"When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction."
Cblues101
Hi Judy,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I guess you could be considered a
true believer if I am to be charactorized as anti TM. I prefer the term
free thinker to just being anti anything. I'll bet you would also prefer
a broader term than true believer. I'm really not into ad hominin attacks
and as you mentioned I will try to be specific so we can proceed with some
hope of communicating.
First off I stand by Andrew's article and do not not retract anything nor
do I think he was trying to mislead anyone. I have much respect for him
and his work. Rather than try to rate people as high or low in the
movement let me say that Andrew was dealing with sidhas from TM EX before
talking to me and in relationship to them I was the highest member he
talked to. To say that 4 years at MIU, 3 at sidhaland, 1 at the DC
College of natural law, 1 as DC center chairman, with 10 years fulltime in
the group didn't place me in an "in the know " position in the movement
seems funny to me. From the point of a non meditator who was his
audiance, I was sufficiently into it to speak with some authority on the
subject. Of course in the world of being fulltime in the movement the
only true custodians of the knowledge are celibate men, at least that is
what you are led to believe by celibate men! I agree that being DC center
chairman was not what it used to be in status in the movement. It brought
me into contact with the so called "higher ups" all the time. I wouldn't
have had this exposure in any other center.
As far as TM using science as marketing instead of as true science, what I
mean by this is that the claims of TM are not presented in a form that can
be falsifified if the evidence goes the other way. During my 4 years at
MIU I was very close to the TM studies in progress and never saw a desire
to see if TM works. It was always assumed that it did and the
interpretations from the data were adjusted to fit the results. Most
claims are not stated in a form that can be falsified by evidence. For
example if a new meditator feels good from TM, this is TM working, and if
they feel bad, it is un stressing, again TM working. This is not
acceptable scientific practice. I experienced that the people around
maharishi were so eager to please that data that did not support claims
was never brought up. More importantly the spirit of scientific integrity
was never respected by a man who by his own admission has a contempt for
the scientific method. That is what Andrew was conveying in my perhaps
glib but still I believe accurate 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed quote. If
the spirit of science was really alive in the movement it would not
blacklist people like Benson who published unpopular results.
I don't make any claims about the German study. I've read it and I have
no idea what agenda they have with their research. I don't need the
Germans to tell me about TM or the movement.
Although I wish John Knapp well and did work with him on a project for
Margret Singer, I have never met him in person and have no idea what was
said in the past by John about me. That project is no longer going on and
I haven't talked to him in ages.
About TM teaches never lying... I know it is not a public image enhancing
view so I do not blame you for saying it is not so. But I still maintain
that this practice was common and almost unconscious for teachers who
sincerely believed that it was in the public's best interest not to know
certain things about the teaching. I don't see where it will get us to
debate this. I experienced it, and you say you did not. I'm not sure
were we can go from here. I do not retract anything I said to Andrew and
I still believe his intentions were really good with his article. He took
a lot of time to make sure I was comfortable with his quotes. To try to
sum up complex ideas in sound bites is not easy or always successful but
we did try to do our best to convey hours of discussions into a few
phrases.
Gita quotes... I don't think I can bring myself to dig out a gita and
debate this. There was a time when I might have enjoyed this but not now.
You are the expert in gita quotes today compared to me. The point I am
interested in is that when you create a distinction between people who are
enlightened and those who are not it is condescending and I believe it is
false. I don't believe in enlightenment these days so I find people who
claim to be in that state offensive because they inply an intrinsic
superiority. To be more specific at how this attitude leads people in the
movement to lie to the public lets take a specific point:
Part of the inner TM doctrine involves the technique of serving the master
as a path of enlightenment, in fact it is believed to be the fastest path.
This drives the volunteers and was the justification for much free labor
from me while full time. If a perspective meditator somehow hears about
this and asks about it at an introductory lecture, the teacher feels
justified in brushing it off because the person is not ready to hear about
that level of the teaching at that stage. You used the example of physics
courses and I think it is a perfect example of what I mean. It is not as
if the meditator couldn't understand the concept of service. In physics
you might not have the math background to fully understand something but
any question would be answered as best as it could be. In TM the person
could understand it but might not believe it, or it would seem strange to
them, and they might think TM was strange and not start. The
justification given is that he can't understand it properly at his level
of consciousness and I think this is very wrong. If TM would be up front
about such beliefs I would have no problem with people who freely choose
to believe such things. Any religion will spell out its beliefs on the
first exposure and you can take it or leave it. TM as a self proclaimed
science should be at least this honest with the public. The movement puts
a great effort to restrict access to tapes and other information so that
it can dole it out as the movement sees fit. One of the great things
about the internet is that restricted information is no longer possible to
control. If I had more of the full story early on I might have avoided
many years in TM. The only other point of view I found was the Christian
fundimentalist view, and since I couldn't relate to that, I had no fully
articulated counter point of view. The teachers around me were very
careful not to tell me things I might not believe. That led me deeper and
deeper into TM without having the full story.
Your example of the removal of Indian objects from MIU bookstore to give
an impression of a conservative Western image while we celibrated Indian
holidays is exactly the type of deceptive behavior I am talking about.
Rather than admit its deep affiliation with Hindu religion this is hidden.
I am not even putting Hindu religion down. If you want to practice it
and call it vedic instead, that is your choice. But lets be more honest
to the public who might want to try another less cultually rich relaxation
technique for stress release.
So I hope that answers most of your points. I don't expect agreement but
do appreciate a chance to express my view which you have kindly done. I
think it is natural that with so many aspects to the movement we have
different experiences and understanding of what it means. Only the most
simplistic philosophy could be thought of in exactly the same way by
different people. I obviously was not speaking for you in any article,
but for myself and my own personal experience with TM. If your experience
is very different from mine that might explain why we see things so
differently. In any case I prefer to talk about TM with a person who is
passionate about it one way or the other. Thanks Judy,
Curtis Mailloux
wbs...@aol.com
Dans l'article <19970204220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) écrit :
>
>The more important point I was trying to make to the interviewer was that
>the movement does not disclose the full truth to new meditators and
>consciously hides aspects of its teaching which it feels would turn off
>the public. As you get higher and higher in the organization it is
>revealed little by little. This is not a practice which I feel is fair
to
>the public. Hiding the true beliefs about maharishi and the inner
>teachings of the movement is reflexive for teachers and this reflex was
>trained very carefully. "the wise should not delude the ignorant" gita
>quote was the justification I was given. I am puzzeled by teachers who
>claim that they never experienced this.
>
>
Curtis, I've been following this thread with great interest. What you've
been saying certainly sounds sincere to me and you have gone to pains to
clarify a good number of misunderstandings. However each time you have
qualified one of your former statements as above I find myself asking even
more questions.
Did you as a teacher really refer to new meditators as "the
unenlightened?"
Did you know that your term "SIMS Shuffle" has been touted in the press,
on this newsgroup on Trancenet as official TM doctrine and not a "joke"
you had with Mr. Jarvis? Andrew Skolnick wrote in JAMA that it was a
technique to be "mastered."
In your 15 years of involvement with the movement didn't you ever see
anyone who benefited from meditation? Didn't you run across new meditators
who were refreshed and relaxed, less tense and enjoying life more? People
who didn't necessarily turn their lives over to the movement?
I've only been meditating for three years and am in no way involved with
"the movement." I am a satisfied customer who goes about his life as
before except two twenty minute meditations a day. I feel better now than
I have in over twenty years. The results I've experienced and others have
noticed are real, tangible and quite exciting.
You know, Curtis, if I had seen that famous quote of yours before I
learned TM I think I would have hesitated or more likely not bothered to
learn at all. From my perspective that would have been a tragedy for me. I
know that I would have viewed the TM teachers with distrust and
skepticism. These same teachers over the past three years have repeatedly
proven themselves to be honest and forthright and far from uniform in
their opinions. How unfair it would have been for me to consider them
liars based on your quote, expecially after what you've been saying on the
newsgroup since.
How many people who could have benefited from TM have been turned off
after reading what you said? How many honest and sincere teachers have
been looked upon with disdain?
How many meditators have friends or family that have read your quote and
are now convinced that they are members of a dangerous cult?
I think it would be only fair if you gave us a new quote to use when
confronted by the "defection of a high ranking official" business.
Something on the order of how you enjoyed your TM experience (as you
said). Maybe you could add that teachers are not systematically instructed
to deceive, that new meditators are not called "the unenlighted" behind
their backs, that most people who learn TM integrate it easily into their
daily lives and are not part of a cult. That would be terrific. Each time
Mr.Skolnick or Mr. Knapp pull out the "SIMS Shuffle" or "Curtis Mailloux
said" people who feel that TM isn't getting a fair shake could add "well
he also said ......"
Please understand that I am not asking you in any way to deny what you
lived through. I and I am sure other TMers throughly respect the validity
of your experience. I am very happy that you found growth and happiness in
your life since quitting the movemen . It seems obvious to me that that
can be accomplished without TM. I have friends who feel meditation isn't
right for them either. No problem. I'm just asking you to qualify your
former statement to show that what you experienced isn't necessarily the
way it is for most people who meditate or for that matter teach
meditation. I am asking you to temper what you said so that those quotes
can no longer be used by unscrupulous individuals who are waging war with
TM and won't be satisfied until the entire world is convinced it is all a
sham. What a fantastic way that would be to reconcile with your old TM
friends and prove good will.
Sincerely,
Wayne Byars
Stokes Dickins
>
>I was in that one month class in SCI that Jerry taught at MIU in June,
>1979. A GREAT course.
>
>Jerry always embodied the heart and (especially) mind of a seeker. His
>goal in that course was to have us delve deeply into the core of
>Maharishi's teachings with the purpose of "owning" that knowledge.
>Everyone loved Jerry's honesty and fervent pursuit of knowledge. I don't
>think anyone was disappointed in the class, to say the least.
>
>I speak with Jerry fairly regularly, and so asked him today about this
>"sims shuffle" term that you attribute to him. I presumed that if there
>was such a term, knowing Jerry, it couldn't mean what the Skolnick article
>(referencing you in it's use) implied - the encouragement of dishonesty.
>
Hi, Steve,
Thanks so much for posting Jerry Jarvis news. I was incredulous when
I read in the newspaper clip that he says he's not enlightened. I
thought he was enlightened when he came to MIU and lectured in
1974-1975. If he's not enlightened, he's certainly endearing. I saw
him in Atlanta in 1973. I was at the lecture where the monks asked
Manarishi how he got rid of stress and he replied, "Success takes care
of stress." Ask Jerry if I'm remembering that right, next time you
see him, if you happen to remember. :-)
I'm glad if you've enjoyed some of my posts. It's always interesting
to me that the debates on a.m.t. are seen differently by different
people. I love the synergistic effect of all the varying
perspectives. So many points come up that I never would have thought
of. Like the cult stuff<laugh>. Maybe it's because I am so right
brain in my responses to life as well as TM that I enjoy Judy's posts
so much. I really marvel at her skill in action.
BTW, Stokes really appreciated your feedback to his post and he also
enjoyed reading about Jerry Jarvis.
Thank you.
Barbara
Cblues101
Dear Wayne Burns,
Thanks for your note. I am happy for you that you enjoy TM and I think it
is an important right for you to do so. I doubt my few words could have
such a powerful effect on people, but if it encourages people to look
deeper into TM rather than accepting it all at face value then I think
what I said has a value. The TM group has a right to exist and teach what
it wants and there are many sincere people teaching TM. That doesn't mean
that TM doesn't have another side or that it is very benificial to people
beyond what any simple relaxation technique can do for you. With the
freedom of information available on the internet I am satisfied that both
views are available. I don't expect TM to give out negitive information.
People can go elsewhere for that. You are much more informed about TM
than I ever was entering the group. If you choose to enjoy it knowing
both sides you are expressing the freedom that I truely believe in.
Although I said I enjoyed the experience of TM and the altered states it
developes in long time practicers, please don't mistake this as an
endorsement for the TM experience. The effects on me were negitive in the
long run. I think you have plenty of sources for this type of information
without me preaching about it. As far as "tempering what I say" as a
suggestion, I hope you will give some thought to the implications of such
a request to a fellow American citizen. Best of luck,
Curtis Mailloux
Cblues101
Dear Wayne Byars,
Sorry I didn't remember your name correctly on my note. With a last name
as unusual as Mailloux you would think I could be a little more careful!
Curtis Mailloux
Judy Stein
<snip>
> As far as John Stanley's comment about me being a mood maker and off the
> program I will say this... In the context of the India course I was able
> to spend time with maharishi's Indian personal assistants. It was on
> their reccomendation that I got a deerskin to sit on for the same reason
> maharishi sits on one. In the TM belief system such practices are
> considered to have a scientific basis in aiding meditation. I was living
> with the group that became the purusha group after India and I can assure
> you that I was not the only member to sit on one. I had a long discussion
> with Nankashore about it and he was quite clear that it would be a benifit
> to me and that maharishi would like to reccomend it more but the public
> wouldn't go for it. It is an example of the different value systems in
> the movement which cater to different people's intensity of interest.
Just for kicks, here's a fuller version of the story John may
have been remembering (from "Grounding the Guru," by Susan
Gervasi, City Paper (Washington, DC), 7/13/90, most likely
republished in other papers).
"At my prime of absurdity, I was sitting in full lotus [position]
for two hours on a black deerskin -- not a brown deerskin -- just
like Maharishi, with rush grass underneath, beads to protect me
from evil influences, coral to develop my intellect . . .
everything had to be perfect for me to get my deep buzz," he
said. "The techniques are powerful enough so you do get a buzz.
I was being the goodest boy, I wanted to be in an unreproachable
state. I was a little Maharishi."
Whether Curtis was on or off the program, ain't much question
about his moodmaking, if the above account is accurate.
This is what we've seen repeatedly on this newsgroup, that the
people who leave and turn rabidly against TM are those whose
involvement was motivated by less-than-healthy impulses to start
with.
Despite themselves, one of the benefits they get from meditating
is the healing of whatever psychological factors produce such
unhealthy impulses (like wanting to be "in an unreproachable
state" and "a little Maharishi").
At that point they take a good look at what they've been doing
and are, quite justifiably, appalled. They reject the whole
business, go out on their own, find themselves leading healthy
lives, and attribute their improved state to having gotten out of
TM's clutches. It's a lot easier to put all the blame on TM
rather than considering how they might have contributed
themselves. But in avoiding that discomfort, they toss the baby
out with the bathwater.
It never occurs to them the reason they are now a lot more
psychologically balanced is *because* of their past TM practice,
not in spite of it. It was their own problems that caused them
to carry their involvement to the sort of absurd lengths Curtis
describes. Nobody *required* Curtis to sit on a deerskin, it was
his own futile desire to be "a little Maharishi" that caused him
to obsessively seek out every possible means to mimic what
Maharishi did, as if that would magically make him more like
Maharishi.
Maharishi warns *constantly* against this type of behavior. In
fact, he makes a strong statement about it in the same Gita
commentary I quoted in a previous post: "If an ignorant man
tries to copy the state of the enlightened in his own life, then
he will create confusion in his behavior....Such a man will prove
useful neither to himself nor to others."
Moreover, as has been discussed here recently, the point of doing
TM is not "to get a deep buzz." Curtis's behavior is exactly the
sort of thing overemphasis on flashy experiences can result in.
TM is for living a productive, happy life. Leading such a life
is the flip side of meditating as far as development of
consciousness is concerned. If you put all the weight on
"perfect" meditation and getting "buzzes," you'll miss out not
only on living, but on balanced development of consciousness as
well.
Meditate and act, meditate and act, MMY says. Meditate, then
forget you've meditated and plunge into activity.
Curtis was so busy trying to be "a little Maharishi" he forgot to
pay attention to what Maharishi was teaching. So much for how
thoroughly Curtis understands "TM doctrine."
Judy Stein
In article <19970207011...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
> Hi Judy,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to respond. I guess you could be considered a
> true believer if I am to be charactorized as anti TM. I prefer the term
> free thinker to just being anti anything. I'll bet you would also prefer
> a broader term than true believer.
Especially since I don't happen to be a true believer in the
first place. I don't think there's much question you're anti-TM,
however.
<snip>
> First off I stand by Andrew's article and do not not retract anything nor
> do I think he was trying to mislead anyone. I have much respect for him
> and his work. Rather than try to rate people as high or low in the
> movement let me say that Andrew was dealing with sidhas from TM EX before
> talking to me and in relationship to them I was the highest member he
> talked to. To say that 4 years at MIU, 3 at sidhaland, 1 at the DC
> College of natural law, 1 as DC center chairman, with 10 years fulltime in
> the group didn't place me in an "in the know " position in the movement
> seems funny to me.
Gosh, Curtis, I don't think I said that, did I? I'm talking
about Andrew's implied inflation of your ranking in the movement,
which you say you have no objection to.
As someone knowledgeable about TM, you are very much aware of the
other distortions, exaggerations, misleading statements, and
half-truths in Andrew's article. Yet you say you stand by
it--and you're surprised and hurt that other informed TMers call
your credibility in question?
From the point of a non meditator who was his
> audiance, I was sufficiently into it to speak with some authority on the
> subject.
I'd say what you've told us of your various roles in the movement
would certainly amount to justification for claiming to speak
with *some* authority--just not quite as much as Andrew would
have liked his readers to believe.
However, then we have the problem of your approval of his article
as a whole, and the various other things you've said in the media
and here.
Of course in the world of being fulltime in the movement the
> only true custodians of the knowledge are celibate men, at least that is
> what you are led to believe by celibate men!
Certainly isn't what I was ever led to believe.
I agree that being DC center
> chairman was not what it used to be in status in the movement. It brought
> me into contact with the so called "higher ups" all the time. I wouldn't
> have had this exposure in any other center.
>
> As far as TM using science as marketing instead of as true science, what I
> mean by this is that the claims of TM are not presented in a form that can
> be falsifified if the evidence goes the other way.
Many of the broad TM claims are not falsifiable. Most if not all
the peer-reviewed published scientific studies, however, do have
falsifiable hypotheses; they wouldn't pass peer review if they
did not. And the scientific research was what you were referring
to in the quote from the newspaper article I posted.
So what you now say you meant in response to my challenge was not
exactly what you actually said, was it?
During my 4 years at
> MIU I was very close to the TM studies in progress and never saw a desire
> to see if TM works. It was always assumed that it did and the
> interpretations from the data were adjusted to fit the results.
I have no doubt this was the tendency where unfavorable data had
to be dealt with. But I don't think all the studies had to deal
with unfavorable data by any means.
Most
> claims are not stated in a form that can be falsified by evidence. For
> example if a new meditator feels good from TM, this is TM working, and if
> they feel bad, it is un stressing, again TM working. This is not
> acceptable scientific practice.
Nor, of course, is it presented as such, so this has nothing to
do with "TM science" either.
I experienced that the people around
> maharishi were so eager to please that data that did not support claims
> was never brought up. More importantly the spirit of scientific integrity
> was never respected by a man who by his own admission has a contempt for
> the scientific method.
Please provide documentation of this latter claim, Curtis. I've
never gotten that impression. What I understand MMY to
disapprove of is the notion that nothing that cannot be
demonstrated by the scientific method is worth knowing--i.e.,
*science's* contempt for knowledge obtained by subjective means.
MMY's easy acceptance of scientific studies as "proving" the
whole TM shebang is problematic. His standards are less than
exacting where "Western" science is concerned, to say the least,
and he has little understanding of why the scientific community
doesn't consider the TM research to be conclusive and embrace it
with enthusiasm. His physics degree notwithstanding, his
respect for science is on the level of a layperson; he respects
it without understanding what it involves. And I agree, the
scientists around him haven't had the guts to give him a remedial
course.
That is what Andrew was conveying in my perhaps
> glib but still I believe accurate 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed quote.
I guess maybe you read my post too quickly, and you don't seem to
remember who you told what. The "dentists" bit did not come from
Andrew's article; it was a statement you apparently made to the
Washington Post.
And as I believe I've pointed out, that statement was far too
glib and too sweeping to be considered accurate. You've made
some more cogent remarks in your post, but unfortunately they're
mixed with inaccurate ones as well.
If
> the spirit of science was really alive in the movement it would not
> blacklist people like Benson who published unpopular results.
Benson was "blacklisted" because he misrepresented the nature of
TM. He never learned TM himself, so as to preserve his
"objectivity," so he was never aware of what it actually
involved. As a former TM teacher, you're well aware his
"Relaxation Response" technique was significantly different from
the TM technique, although he presented it as identical.
Moreover, the results he obtained with his technique were only
superficially similar to the results obtained with TM, as later,
more sophisticated and rigorous TM studies have amply documented.
Benson was in disfavor with the movement because he led folks to
believe, incorrectly, that he had an alternative technique "just
as good as" TM which wouldn't cost money to learn. Thousands of
people who might otherwise have learned TM and gotten great
benefit from it tried his technique instead, found it
unrewarding, and decided meditation was not for them.
> I don't make any claims about the German study. I've read it and I have
> no idea what agenda they have with their research. I don't need the
> Germans to tell me about TM or the movement.
But apparently Knapp believes the German study provides valuable
information about TM. He promotes it as "the most extensive and
prestigious study" to date on the effects of TM, or words to that
effect. Do you agree with his claims?
> Although I wish John Knapp well and did work with him on a project for
> Margret Singer, I have never met him in person and have no idea what was
> said in the past by John about me.
I don't think I referred to anything he may have said about you
in the past.
I'm particularly interested to hear what you think about Knapp's
claims for the German study. Since you say you wish him well, it
sounds as though you approve of what he does on Trancenet.
<snip>
> About TM teaches never lying... I know it is not a public image enhancing
> view so I do not blame you for saying it is not so.
Above you say you do not wish to engage in ad hominem attacks,
yet that's exactly what this statement is, Curtis. You're
suggesting *I'm* lying in an attempt to cover up something that
would be bad for TM's public image.
But I still maintain
> that this practice was common and almost unconscious for teachers who
> sincerely believed that it was in the public's best interest not to know
> certain things about the teaching. I don't see where it will get us to
> debate this.
Well, it might make it possible for us to evaluate your claims
that TM teachers lie, don't you think? You made the claim; you
should be willing to back it up.
I experienced it, and you say you did not. I'm not sure
> were we can go from here.
If you'd provide some specifics, we would have some idea of what
you're talking about.
I do not retract anything I said to Andrew and
> I still believe his intentions were really good with his article.
I'm sure he had the best of intentions. His intentions were so
good, in fact, that he had no inhibitions about using
unscrupulous means to advance them.
He took
> a lot of time to make sure I was comfortable with his quotes. To try to
> sum up complex ideas in sound bites is not easy or always successful but
> we did try to do our best to convey hours of discussions into a few
> phrases.
You were comfortable with his quotes, and yet in your recent post
you went to some lengths to back off from those very same quotes.
> Gita quotes... I don't think I can bring myself to dig out a gita and
> debate this.
It would be hard indeed to make a case for the point you tried to
make. I'm not surprised you can't bring yourself to debate it.
There was a time when I might have enjoyed this but not now.
> You are the expert in gita quotes today compared to me.
Then perhaps you shouldn't attribute phrases to the Gita if
you're not willing even to verify their accuracy, much less the
accuracy of the context you suggest.
But I thought you had proclaimed yourself as knowledgeable as
anyone about TM "doctrine." You promised to let us hear your
informed take on Maharishi's teaching. Are you going to back off
here as well?
The point I am
> interested in is that when you create a distinction between people who are
> enlightened and those who are not it is condescending and I believe it is
> false. I don't believe in enlightenment these days so I find people who
> claim to be in that state offensive because they inply an intrinsic
> superiority.
In other words, what you find offensive is the claim that there
is such a thing as enlightenment, because you believe it doesn't
exist. You are offended by beliefs that do not accord with your
own and consider them false. In some circles that stance would
be viewed as intolerant and bigoted and thoroughly offensive in
and of itself.
Of course, the enlightenment tradition has existed throughout
history and across cultures. You must then find an awful lot of
people offensive tellers of falsehoods because of what they
believe. On the other hand, very few people in TM claim to be
enlightened. Even MMY has not made that claim, as far as I'm
aware, although it's certainly generally assumed to be the case.
So who is it that you're talking about?
Whether the distinction claimed for enlightenment versus
"ignorance" is "condescending" is eminently arguable. If
enlightenment is what it's been held to be over the millennia,
it's certainly a "superior" state, in somewhat the same sense
that adulthood is a "superior" state to childhood--a state of
full development of potential.
But just as mature adults don't condescend to children or think
of them as inferior, someone who is enlightened doesn't
condescend to the unenlightened or consider them inferior, since
they have the same capacity to develop their full potential.
It's not condescending to help a child acquire the means to grow
and learn and expand; no more is it condescending to want to
teach the unenlightened how to progress to enlightenment.
However, just as an immature adult may condescend to a child as a
function of his/her own incomplete development, so may those who
are on the path to enlightenment but not yet fully realized make
the mistake of condescending to those who aren't on the path.
This is an individual failing, not a failure of TM or the notion
of enlightenment per se.
To be more specific at how this attitude leads people in the
> movement to lie to the public lets take a specific point:
>
> Part of the inner TM doctrine involves the technique of serving the master
> as a path of enlightenment, in fact it is believed to be the fastest path.
> This drives the volunteers and was the justification for much free labor
> from me while full time. If a perspective meditator somehow hears about
> this and asks about it at an introductory lecture, the teacher feels
> justified in brushing it off because the person is not ready to hear about
> that level of the teaching at that stage.
How, exactly, is it "brushed off"? What lies are actually told?
Specifics, please.
You used the example of physics
> courses and I think it is a perfect example of what I mean. It is not as
> if the meditator couldn't understand the concept of service.
The concept of service per se is perfectly understandable. It
may not be so easily understandable in the context of an
introduction to a purely mechanical technique for expansion of
consciousness.
In physics
> you might not have the math background to fully understand something but
> any question would be answered as best as it could be. In TM the person
> could understand it but might not believe it, or it would seem strange to
> them, and they might think TM was strange and not start. The
> justification given is that he can't understand it properly at his level
> of consciousness and I think this is very wrong.
I don't think it's so much a matter of level of consciousness as
level of intellectual understanding. My level of consciousness,
for instance, is not such that I find the notion of service
appealing, yet I understand what it involves and why it works for
some people. I would not have understood it when I first began
TM. I would have been concerned that I might be required to get
into something that was not congenial to my temperament or
outlook; I would have wondered whether TM outside the service
context was going to do me any good. By the time I did encounter
the notion of service, however, I was familiar enough with the
context of TM to know neither of these was the case.
I would have missed out on something that I've found enormously
beneficial in my own life, in other words, had I encountered the
notion of service before I had acquired a knowledge of the
context, because I would have misunderstood the role it played in
TM. At this point it seems to me highly unlikely I'll ever get
involved with the service aspect, although I wouldn't rule it
out. It doesn't detract from my experience of TM not to be doing
service, nor does it detract from my experience of TM to know
about service even though I'm not doing it, nor did it detract
from my experience of TM not to know about service until I'd been
meditating for some years.
As far as I can see, nobody is harmed by the TM policy of
teaching what's relevant at the appropriate stage, whereas many
might miss out on the great benefits of TM if they were deluged
with everything there is to know about TM right from the start.
They don't need to know everything to derive benefit from TM, and
misunderstanding from lack of sufficient context could interfere
with their deriving benefits. Moreover, if they have sufficient
interest, they can go on to learn everything there is to know.
I see neither deception nor condescension in this policy.
If TM would be up front
> about such beliefs I would have no problem with people who freely choose
> to believe such things.
And yet you say you find it offensive that TMers believe there is
such a thing as enlightenment. Could you explain this
contradiction?
Any religion will spell out its beliefs on the
> first exposure and you can take it or leave it.
Religions are very different from TM. TM can be practiced on a
wide range of levels, irrespective of beliefs. Religion, in
contrast, is grounded almost exclusively in beliefs. You can't
be a member of a religion without adopting the beliefs of that
religion, but you can be a TMer, and derive great benefit from
TM, without accepting *any* of its beliefs, or only as many as
you happen to find congenial. It's entirely up to you.
Moreover, when TMers become curious about what's involved in TM
beyond the basic technique, they do so specifically because of
the experiences they've had with that basic technique. And that
is generally the case throughout all the levels of involvement;
if one begins to accept more and more of the TM beliefs, it's
because one has begun to validate them in one's own
consciousness, in one's own experience, and to integrate them
intellectually. It's quite often the case that a meditator will
have experiences prior even to hearing the teachings about those
experiences, and that's what leads many TMers to want to find out
more about the teachings.
So the two situations can't be compared. TM is not belief-based,
it's experience-based.
TM as a self proclaimed
> science should be at least this honest with the public.
TM is a *subjective* science, and this is a very significant
difference. In this respect, my analogy doesn't apply.
The movement puts
> a great effort to restrict access to tapes and other information so that
> it can dole it out as the movement sees fit. One of the great things
> about the internet is that restricted information is no longer possible to
> control. If I had more of the full story early on I might have avoided
> many years in TM.
Which would have been a good thing from your present perspective.
However, there are many people benefiting from TM today,
long-time, thoroughly satisfied practitioners, who would not have
started had they had more of the "full story" early on, before
they had sufficient context to understand how it all fit
together. If they had the choice to go back and do it all over
again, they wouldn't change a thing about the way the TM
teachings are presented.
On the other hand, there are those who *might* have derived great
benefit from TM who have encountered material published on the
Internet who have been dissuaded from learning by it--not just
because they didn't have the proper context but because the
material was provided in a misleading or deliberately false
context. It cuts both ways--restricted information can no
longer be controlled, nor can unscrupulous people be prevented
from making that restricted information public in a manner
calculated to deceive.
The only other point of view I found was the Christian
> fundimentalist view, and since I couldn't relate to that, I had no fully
> articulated counter point of view. The teachers around me were very
> careful not to tell me things I might not believe. That led me deeper and
> deeper into TM without having the full story.
From what you've told us, it looks as though you did indeed get
the full story and were quite happy with it for some years.
You've been busy telling us details of the full story in your
posts and pointing out how deeply involved you became with all
these details for quite awhile. So it's far from clear what your
objection is.
You didn't leave TM, according to your own account, because you'd
finally discovered the full story and found it repugnant. You
left because you encountered some other teaching that made you
change your mind about believing the full story was valid after
you'd been convinced of its validity for some time.
So which was it, Curtis? You've given us two very different
stories here in different posts.
> Your example of the removal of Indian objects from MIU bookstore to give
> an impression of a conservative Western image while we celibrated Indian
> holidays is exactly the type of deceptive behavior I am talking about.
Interesting that you avoid addressing the contradiction with the
quote from Andrew's article about how TM teachers were
purportedly trained to "exploit reporters'...fascination with the
exotic, especially what comes from the East."
> Rather than admit its deep affiliation with Hindu religion this is hidden.
> I am not even putting Hindu religion down. If you want to practice it
> and call it vedic instead, that is your choice.
I happen to choose not to practice anything other than the TM
techniques, thank you, but that's beside the point. As you know,
TM does not have a "deep affiliation" with Hinduism, Hinduism has
a deep affiliation with the Vedas. TM also has a deep
affiliation with the Vedas, but that doesn't mean TM has a deep
affiliation with Hinduism. That's a false equation.
But lets be more honest
> to the public who might want to try another less cultually rich relaxation
> technique for stress release.
Those who learn TM decide for themselves whether to become
involved with any of the "cultural" (Vedic) trappings of TM as
and if they encounter them. Plain-vanilla TM practiced on one's
own has no cultural associations, and it would be dishonest to
tell people otherwise. People need go no further with regard to
the cultural associations than they're comfortable with.
What is your problem with that? Why is it dishonest to present
TM to the public as a technique that does not involve cultural
associations, when indeed it doesn't unless the individual
subsequently decides s/he wants to pursue them?
> So I hope that answers most of your points.
Actually, Curtis, much of your response raises new problems; and
you failed to respond to many of the questions I posed.
I don't expect agreement but
> do appreciate a chance to express my view which you have kindly done. I
> think it is natural that with so many aspects to the movement we have
> different experiences and understanding of what it means. Only the most
> simplistic philosophy could be thought of in exactly the same way by
> different people. I obviously was not speaking for you in any article,
> but for myself and my own personal experience with TM.
Unfortunately, you have not made that clear in any of the many
media quotes from you I've read; you have appeared to be making
categorical statements about TM as a whole.
Nobody begrudges you your personal view of TM, no matter how
mistaken we may think it is. I myself don't object when you
accurately and fairly characterize some of the movement's
deficiencies; I've done so myself.
But a lot of what you say simply doesn't add up. You speak in
vague generalities and avoid saying anything specific enough to
evaluate; you have contradicted yourself a number of times; when
you do give specifics, they turn out not to match up with the
original generalities. You establish a false parallel between TM
and religion; you incorrectly state TM is affiliated with
Hinduism. You approve of Skolnick's deceptive hatchet job on TM
in JAMA and wish John Knapp well, who routinely publishes
misleading and cynically, deliberately false material concerning
TM, At the same time you accuse TM of deception because it
believes there is such a thing as enlightenment and tries to
teach people about it according to their level of interest.
If your experience
> is very different from mine that might explain why we see things so
> differently.
I haven't yet managed to sort out how you see things, Curtis. So
far, you have not been giving a very coherent presentation, to
say the least.
Cblues101
Hi Judy,
I appreciate your detailed response. I will try to answer questions you
brought up and also try to inclued some points that may help you
understand where I am coming from. I will deal with a few quick points
first that I think are the most important and then try to move in
sequence.
About your comments on my City paper quote... I have respect for Susan and
the article she wrote. She did however condense some things I said into a
form that I was not comfortable with. For example her statement about me
saying I was a little maharishi. I know what she ment and at the same
time I did not say it that way. Because she felt strongly about not
having me put spin on her article I was not able to correct this small
point. The spirit of what I ment was intact however. MY point was that
in TM I was on a path for human perfection. This perfectionistic standard
was symbolized by the maharishi. I was not deluded into thinking that by
looking like maharishi I was being like him. I was just trying to do all
the practices I could to further my evolution and in the monastic context
I was living in the behaviors mentioned in the article were common.
Everyone didn't have a deer skin but most wore beads. My point was that I
was at that time following maharishi's strictest program and according to
him this was our fastest path of growth. It is not fair to point to me
like I was some moodmaker on my own with these behaviors. Go into the
dome right now and make a bead wearers count. To say that my goal of
enlightenment was an un healthy impulse is also unfair. The whole point
of the program was supposed to be to raise the student to the level of the
teacher. Interestingly in the movement it is built in that anyone who
claims to have achieved this state is suspect. Name one person who has
been acknowledged to have achieved the goal of TM recently. I was saying
that I felt the whole premise, seeking perfection, is bogus. I wasn't
trying to set myself up as a little maharishi but was doing everything I
could to achieve his state. This was a very natural goal especially
considering where I was and the promises I was given to get me there by
maharishi. As you point out the true meaning of moodmaking is copying the
internal state of the enlightenent not wearing beads. I was not doing
this . As far as saying that TM gives you a mental feel good buzz but not
a significant higher state of consciousness, I stand by that statement.
In a rounding environment the meditate and and act formula has a very
different balance. In Florida the emphasis was on internal experiences of
the sidhis not our action by maharishi's direction. Again I was
describing my experience and when viewed from another perspective is seems
strange. To try to demonize me as an incorrect meditator is unfair.
To the ongoing debate about my rank in the movement perhaps you could lay
out the correct hierarchy for me and we can then both agree where I was in
that system. I think with a chart you construct on the way you see it, we
could come to an agreement. If MIU graduate, center chairman was my rank
please explain who was above me and below me in the TM system.
I have not in my opinion backed off of any statement in the press. I am
trying to clarify points which can be taken in different contexts to mean
different things. The reason this article was written at all is in
response to Chopra being dishonest about his relationship with the
movement. Andrew called me to try to understand why he was being lied to.
I explained the TM mindset to him and other press so they could get
behind the image TM represents to the world and what I feel is a more
accurate picture of its true beliefs. Your letter mentions teaching what
is relivant to the appropriate stage. I maintain that this involves
inaccuracies. For example the public is first told that the mantras have
no meaning. On teacher training I was trained in the meaning of two words
in my mantra. Notice I did not say I dug it up on my own, I was tought
it. My mantra does have a specific meaning and I was trained in it. The
statement that mantras do not have meanings should be altered to say,
unless you study sanskrit, or become a teacher, in which case you will be
required to memorize the meaning of you advanced technique mantra. All
the secrecy about the mantras is so inappropriate
for a science. Show me any science that hides the methodology of its
techniques. As far as misrepresentation goes how about the claim that the
mantra is carefully selected for the individual by a precise procedure to
make sure the person has the correct sound for their nervous system. I
don't think that claim holds up to scrutiny do you? I don't claim TM is
scientific, maharishi does. I think it is a system of belief that is
religious in nature because things are taken on faith instead of proof.
Otherwise we could say the claim of heaven by Christians is scientific you
just have to die to prove it. The claim of higher states takes how long to
prove? I bailed out at 15 years doing every technique offered. What is
the new timetable? I am not offended by TMers believing in enlightenment.
I am offended by people like maharishi who represent themselvesas
enlightened. I am also offended by people doleing out the beliefs of an
organization according to how a teacher decides when they have the
"sufficient context to understand how it all fit together", your quote.
If in fact they "would not have started had they had more of the 'full
story' early on ", again your quote, then this is the mentality I was
exposing in the article. The public doesn't know about this process of
deciding what will help a person believe what is presented, by selecting
only those most believable things first. This is not a sound practice of
teaching because as I said before the public can understand the inner TM
teaching it just may not believe them.. The public deserves full
disclosure upfront, not only if you take a residance course where all you
normal information sources are cut off first. If TM doesn't want to be
labeled as a cult then it should stop acting like one. The reason that TM
teachers feel justified in this duplicitious presention of information is
because they believe that knowledge is different in different states of
consciousness. If you feel that me saying the wise shouldn't delude the
ignorant in some way distorts maharishi's intentions I disagree with you.
I think you expressed the same thing in your quote. It is not TMers
believing in enlightenment that I find offensive, it is this judgemnent
call made on my behalf by other adults concerning what I should and
shouldn't learn about a practice I have started. I don't mind teaching
according to a plan but teachers go way beyond this to give an impression
of the movement that is not accurate. I also resent people who present
themselves as having "spontaineous right action" or that their memory is
guided by "the need of the times" not by simple ignorant recollection.
There is no such thing as "plain vanilla" practice of TM. To pretend that
TM is taken out of its cultural trappings just because these are not
explained to a new meditator is dishonest
To try to differentiate vedic from Hindu is silly to any academic. This
is marketing spin at its most deceptive. I sat with maharishi in from of
a picture of Laxmi on the Hindu celabration of Diwali. I then did the
same thing in his college in DC. The distictions the movement makes are
for marketing reasons and are a blatent disregard for the truth.
As for ad hominim attacks, when I implied that you were lying to cover for
TMs beliefs that the public is kept away from, I was attacking a behavior
not you as a person. As an example, when you charactorized me as trying
to be a little maharishi because I sat on a deer skin it was an attempt to
try to make me look silly to discredit what I say. I never said that
sitting on a deer skin would magically make me more like maharishi, I said
I sat on it ot improve my experiences in meditation. The advice I got
from Nankashore was to use it but not show the public. To ridicule me for
this behavior is really disrespectful to the maharishi himself who
definitely believes that this practice has a concrete value.
Are we having fun yet!
Have a great weekend,
Curtis Mailloux
Neoshoki
>> Curtis Mailloux says:
>> The point I am
>> interested in is that when you create a distinction between people who
are
>> enlightened and those who are not it is condescending and I believe it
is
>> false. I don't believe in enlightenment these days so I find people
who
>> superiority.
>
> Judy Stein replies:
> In other words, what you find offensive is the claim that there
> is such a thing as enlightenment, because you believe it doesn't
Judy, I think that a rereading of Curtis' statement above will find
the word "because," followed by the phrase "they imply an intrin-
sic superiority." While your assumption above about what he finds
offensive may or may not be correct, I fail to see it supported in
his statement.
> Of course, the enlightenment tradition has existed throughout
> history and across cultures. <snip again> On the other hand,
> very few people in TM claim to be enlightened. Even MMY
> has not made that claim, as far as I'm aware, although it's
> certainly generally assumed to be the case.
I would certainly have to agree with what Judy says here. In the
entire 14 years I spent in the TM movement, not once did I ever
hear MMY make that claim. The only people I ran into who _did_
make such a claim were so off the wall that no one would have
taken their word for the time of day, much less being enlightened.
> Whether the distinction claimed for enlightenment versus
> "ignorance" is "condescending" is eminently arguable. If
> enlightenment is what it's been held to be over the millennia,
> it's certainly a "superior" state, in somewhat the same sense
> that adulthood is a "superior" state to childhood--a state of
> full development of potential.
>
> But just as mature adults don't condescend to children or think
> of them as inferior, someone who is enlightened doesn't
> condescend to the unenlightened or consider them inferior, since
> they have the same capacity to develop their full potential.
> It's not condescending to help a child acquire the means to grow
> and learn and expand; no more is it condescending to want to
> teach the unenlightened how to progress to enlightenment.
>
> However, just as an immature adult may condescend to a child as a
> function of his/her own incomplete development, so may those who
> are on the path to enlightenment but not yet fully realized make
> the mistake of condescending to those who aren't on the path.
> This is an individual failing, not a failure of TM or the notion
> of enlightenment per se.
Hear hear! Beautifully put, Judy.
Barry Wright
"I was in a job interview and I opened a book and started
reading. Then I said to the guy, 'Let me ask you a question.
If you are in a spaceship that is traveling at the speed of
light, and you turn on the headlights, does anything happen?'
He said, 'I don't know.' I said, 'I don't want your job.'"
Susan Seifert
I don't have time to respond to all the inaccuracies in Curt's post, but
here are a few:
In article <19970208183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
> Hi Judy,
> I appreciate your detailed response. I will try to answer questions you
> brought up and also try to inclued some points that may help you
> understand where I am coming from. I will deal with a few quick points
> first that I think are the most important and then try to move in
> sequence.
> About your comments on my City paper quote... I have respect for Susan and
> the article she wrote. She did however condense some things I said into a
> form that I was not comfortable with. For example her statement about me
> saying I was a little maharishi. I know what she ment and at the same
> time I did not say it that way. Because she felt strongly about not
> having me put spin on her article I was not able to correct this small
> point. The spirit of what I ment was intact however. MY point was that
> in TM I was on a path for human perfection. This perfectionistic standard
> was symbolized by the maharishi. I was not deluded into thinking that by
> looking like maharishi I was being like him. I was just trying to do all
> the practices I could to further my evolution and in the monastic context
> I was living in the behaviors mentioned in the article were common.
> Everyone didn't have a deer skin but most wore beads. My point was that I
> was at that time following maharishi's strictest program and according to
> him this was our fastest path of growth. It is not fair to point to me
> like I was some moodmaker on my own with these behaviors. Go into the
> dome right now and make a bead wearers count.
And takers of vitamins, and various herbal products, and goers to seminars,
and other self-improvement schemes unrelated to TM. These things are not
promoted by the movement, but the movement attracts the
cure-of-the-month-club crowd who will try just about anything, including
beads.
>To say that my goal of
> enlightenment was an un healthy impulse is also unfair. The whole point
> of the program was supposed to be to raise the student to the level of the
> teacher.
You know, it's interesting that Maharishi doesn't claim he's enlightened.
In fact, he almost never refers to himself at all. His focus is on
popularizing TM, ayurveda, and the other technologies of consciousness and
in my experience he does his best to deflect attention from himself as a
person.
[snip]
> For example the public is first told that the mantras have
> no meaning. On teacher training I was trained in the meaning of two words
> in my mantra. Notice I did not say I dug it up on my own, I was tought
> it. My mantra does have a specific meaning and I was trained in it.
>The
> statement that mantras do not have meanings should be altered to say,
> unless you study sanskrit, or become a teacher, in which case you will be
> required to memorize the meaning of you advanced technique mantra. All
> the secrecy about the mantras is so inappropriate
> for a science.
I became a TM teacher in India in 1970, helped with teacher training in
Bangalore in 1970 and in Fiuggi in 1972, have attended numerous advanced
courses for teachers, spent quite a bit of time on Maharishi's
International Staff, traveled with him personally, and taught full-time for
16 years.
Never in teacher training or advanced training are meanings are ascribed to
any mantras. Never. The mantras used in TM have no meaning whatever within
the context of TM. If they have some meaning in other languages, that is a
totally irrelevant coincidence.
I suspect that Curtis may be referring to specific Sanskrit syllables he
learned as part of the puja and that he ascribed a meaning to his mantra on
his own based on that.
To state that he was "required to memorize the meaning of you [sic]
advanced technique mantra" is completely untrue. As part of teacher
training you are required to memorize some Sankrit. Never is any part of
that identified as mantras, advanced technique or otherwise.
There is absolutely no deception on the part of the movement, explicit or
implicit, regarding this. TM mantras have no meaning.
[snip]
> I am offended by people like maharishi who represent themselvesas
> enlightened.
see above
Susan
wbs...@aol.com
Thank you Curtis for taking the time to respond to my post even if you
didn't address my specific points.
Dans l'article <19970207195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) écrit :
>That doesn't mean
>that TM doesn't have another side or that it is very benificial to people
>beyond what any simple relaxation technique can do for you.
That is very interesting however I haven't heard of any other simple
relaxation technique that significantly lowers blood pressure as reported
in Hypertension Magazine.
I wouldn't presume to speak as an authority on the subject. I can only
relate my point of view based on my own experience. I have tried many
simple and some not so simple relaxation techniques. I mean a sincere
try. They include most notably Benson's Relaxation Response which I used
for two years. I also tried rebrithing, Schultz auto-training, hypnosis
and self-hypnosis, hatha yoga, conscious breathing, creative
visualisation. I know that all sounds sort of silly but I have always been
on the anxious side and felt that my life would be more enjoyable if I
could just conquer those nerves. Well I literally stumbled onto TM and
brother am I glad I did. Nothing can compare with the peace and calm I
immediately found. The Relaxation Response is so pale in comparison I
can't help but laugh when I read that it is as good as TM.
With the
>freedom of information available on the internet I am satisfied that both
>views are available. I don't expect TM to give out negitive information.
>People can go elsewhere for that. You are much more informed about TM
>than I ever was entering the group. If you choose to enjoy it knowing
>both sides you are expressing the freedom that I truely believe in.
Well Curtis some of the *information* available on the internet might be
better called by another name. John Knapp's Trancenet once *informed* us
of a looming crisis. It was sent out as an ALERT capital letters and all.
Anyone anywhere who had friends or loved ones who practiced TM were
*informed* that Maharishi had "ordered" TMer's to "remote jungle
outposts." Family members were urged to contact their TM relatives before
it was too late and another Jonestown happened. He reported people selling
their homes and leaving their jobs. All because they were "beholden" (sic)
to the Maharishi. The entire episode was laughable and cleared up any
doubts about Trancenet's integrity for me. I'm glad you wish him well
because he needs all the help he can get if he wants anyone to ever again
take him seriously.
When you say that you don't expect TM to give out negative information I
can cite a couple of exceptions. Granted they are not *official* TM
policy.
When I first discovered Trancenet and TMex I was surprised and baffled.
The things I read didn't correspond to what I had experienced. I went to
see my instructor and asked her to comment on the various accusations. To
my surprise and relief she did not try to convince me that it wasn't true.
She simply told me that TM has had plenty of bad press. It was a good
thing for me to know about it. I should read through all of it, inform
myself and then make up my mind. Accept some or all of it or reject it. It
was up to me. Not the sort of statment one would expect from someone in
slavish devotion to Maharishi. Not the sort of statement by someone who
being a teacher had been *instructed* to deceive. I guess she hasn't quite
mastered the SIMS Shuffle. If TM has taught me nothing else it is to think
for myself. Not to swallow something because "Maharishi says" or
"Trancenet says."
Another TM teacher told me to wait to learn the Sidhi technique because it
was ridiculously overpriced. He also made it very clear that the technique
is not appropriate for everyone. He explained that in particular the
"flying" sutra seemed to bring on psychological disturbances in some
people. Guess he better get to work on the shuffle too.
>. As far as "tempering what I say" as a
>suggestion, I hope you will give some thought to the implications of such
>a request to a fellow American citizen. Best of luck,
I'm sorry I don't understand. My Random House Unabridged defines Temper as
"to soften or to tone down." That is all I was asking and don't feel it
was particularly un-American. I was appealing to those traditional
American values such as Justice, Honesty and Truth. It's just that you
seemed to be not so radical in your anti-TM stance as those quotes make
you appear. I thought here was someone who was more of a middle or a
roader. Someone who had perphaps overdosed on TM but someone who
understood that TM is what you make of it, that many different experiences
were possible. Someone whose words had been used to *prove* that his bad
experience was the basic truth about TM and it's organization. I guess I
was mistaken. I thought you could bring some fresh air to these tired
arguments.
As an American citizen maybe you would be concerned about giving those
who are happy with TM and feel it benefits their lives who are being
painted as the dupes of a destructive cult. I thought you wouldn't want
people to think that you meant that your old TM friends who teach are
liars who have actually been instructed to
"systematically" deceive. I had hoped that you would not deny what had
already been printed but add something to make it clear that your
experience is only that, your experience, and there are other alternatives
for mediators and teachers alike.
I was surprised and disappointed when you said that you stand by
Skolnick's Jama article. I've gone through it and there is not one
positive or balancing statement in the entire piece. Not one. Do you stand
by his statement that SIMS was a "front group" for Maharishi? Like
laundromats for the Mafia. He also states that TM'ers believe they will
walk through walls. Teachers "master the SIMS shuffle." TM doctors
prescribe feces infected products. If he had included just a line or two
about the positive results of meditationto to put things in perspective.
Ther is nothing. You read that article and you expect to turn the page and
find out that Hitler is still alive and posing as Maharishi.
Can those "wonderful" old friends of yours be that wrong? Sounds like that
even after twenty or thirty years of meditating and they are doing fine.
Maybe what was wrong for you was right for them. Is TM really an evil
empire in disguise? I can understand differences of opinion,philosphy,
taste and lifestyles. But how can you imagine reconnecting with old TM
friends while maintaining such a radical position? You say once felt
"superior" to non-meditators. I may be wrong but I detect just a whiff of
superiority to all those poor people wasting their lives practicing TM.
I don't mean to sound aggresive, I'm just trying to make some sense out of
the wide differences of our experiences.
Best regards,
Wayne Byars
EdMeasure
Subject: Re : Re: Re : Re: Hello to old TM friends
From: wbs...@aol.com
Date: 9 Feb 1997 10:09:23 GMT
Message-ID: <19970209100...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
.
.
cblues101:>
>That doesn't mean
>that TM doesn't have another side or that it is very benificial to people
>beyond what any simple relaxation technique can do for you.
wbs1028:
That is very interesting however I haven't heard of any other simple
relaxation technique that significantly lowers blood pressure as reported
in Hypertension Magazine.
I wouldn't presume to speak as an authority on the subject. I can only
relate my point of view based on my own experience. I have tried many
simple and some not so simple relaxation techniques. I mean a sincere
try. They include most notably Benson's Relaxation Response which I used
for two years. I also tried rebrithing, Schultz auto-training, hypnosis
and self-hypnosis, hatha yoga, conscious breathing, creative
visualisation. I know that all sounds sort of silly but I have always been
on the anxious side and felt that my life would be more enjoyable if I
could just conquer those nerves. Well I literally stumbled onto TM and
brother am I glad I did. Nothing can compare with the peace and calm I
immediately found. The Relaxation Response is so pale in comparison I
can't help but laugh when I read that it is as good as TM.
edmeasure:
I totally agree. I have tried many, many forms of meditation and have
looked into various self help type of stress release programs, including
the many Benson type intellectual phenomena. None, absolute none, come
close to TM. The simple TM Technique is awesome for feeling good.
wbs1038:
Another TM teacher told me to wait to learn the Sidhi technique because it
was ridiculously overpriced. He also made it very clear that the technique
is not appropriate for everyone. He explained that in particular the
"flying" sutra seemed to bring on psychological disturbances in some
people. Guess he better get to work on the shuffle too.
edmeasure:
Yes, "TM flying" has been a great embaressment to TM. The sooner that the
TM Organization faces up to this, the better. It has thrown many good
folks away. The movement wants to do the world's toughest siddhi, yet
much of the folks so aspiring are simultaneously denying soma, holy
spirit, and the like. How can such possibly work, otherwise, of is TM
sheer magic, without gods or other sheer transcendental realities at all?
wbs1038 to cblues101:
As an American citizen maybe you would be concerned about giving those
who are happy with TM and feel it benefits their lives who are being
painted as the dupes of a destructive cult. I thought you wouldn't want
people to think that you meant that your old TM friends who teach are
liars who have actually been instructed to "systematically" deceive. I had
hoped that you would not deny what had already been printed but add
something to make it clear that your experience is only that, your
experience, and there are other alternatives for mediators and teachers
alike.
edmeasure:
I'm surprised, like you ws1038, of the overwhelming, deep anger that seems
to be expressed by almost everyone on this news group. There is some
small sense of "truth" in most of what cblues101 expresses, but are thrown
all out of proportion to the realities. Most TM Teachers and the
"insiders" surely know that TM is the best thing since Apple Pie, and for
that reason, too much pride often surges. I'm near enlightened type of
attitudes which sometime feed back on to others. The continuing double
talking, about almost everything now, from the TM organization finally got
to cblues, I think. Enough is enough. TM is so good, os clean, and use
to be so innocent, why not just leave it that way. And Maharishi is
certainly no aetheist, but the aetheistic at heart (the social and
psychologica scientist often) are creating much of these probems
throughout the movement.
wbs1038 to cblues:
I don't mean to sound aggresive, I'm just trying to make some sense out of
the wide differences of our experiences.
Best regards,
Wayne Byars
>>>>>>>>
edmeasure:
Mr cblues101: Why not temper that anger? Are others suggesting to you
that you do not have anger?
jai guru dev - edmeasure
EdMeasure
Subject: Re: Hello to old TM friends
to Mr cblues101:
Great text below, though I do not want to go point by point. You got fed
up with the baloney coming down the pike through the double talking
inspirations of the movement. You quit. You were mad. You talked to a
news reporter and publishing took place. Lots of anti TM sentiments came
out. So what else is new. Is this why some folks are so angry with you?
Big deal. Some day the TM movement will look at themselves and reflect.
But sir, is not the basic, simple TM Technique yet still a joy to do? I
know that there is a lot of bad taste, but that just disappears when doing
the technique, no?
jai guru dev - edmeasure
re: below:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101)
Date: 8 Feb 1997 18:35:35 GMT
Message-ID: <19970208183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Judy Stein
In article <19970207195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
I am happy for you that you enjoy TM and I think it
> is an important right for you to do so. I doubt my few words could have
> such a powerful effect on people, but if it encourages people to look
> deeper into TM rather than accepting it all at face value then I think
> what I said has a value.
Curtis, I don't suppose you have considered that some of us who
are committed to TM *never* accepted it all at face value but
rather have examined it closely as we've gone along--not because
we've run into someone who has "encouraged" us to "look deeper"
by presenting their own jaundiced viewpoint, but simply because
we don't accept things at face value on principle, without
checking first to see if that face value matches up with what we
find when we do our examinations.
I certainly hope readers will be inspired to do their own
investigation of your claims rather than taking your assertions
at face value. It would be difficult in any case to take your
assertions at face value, given that there appear to be quite a
few different faces involved.
The TM group has a right to exist and teach what
> it wants and there are many sincere people teaching TM. That doesn't mean
> that TM doesn't have another side or that it is very benificial to people
> beyond what any simple relaxation technique can do for you.
Are you making a statement here that TM is *not* beneficial to
people beyond what any simple relaxation technique can do?
If so, would you please cite your evidence for this statement?
There's plenty of evidence *against* such a claim. Let's see
what you have to counter this latter evidence.
With the
> freedom of information available on the internet I am satisfied that both
> views are available. I don't expect TM to give out negitive information.
> People can go elsewhere for that. You are much more informed about TM
> than I ever was entering the group. If you choose to enjoy it knowing
> both sides you are expressing the freedom that I truely believe in.
> Although I said I enjoyed the experience of TM and the altered states it
> developes in long time practicers, please don't mistake this as an
> endorsement for the TM experience. The effects on me were negitive in the
> long run. I think you have plenty of sources for this type of information
> without me preaching about it.
Naw, Curtis, we'd like to hear *your* story.
You were apparently more interested in getting a "deep buzz" from
TM than in the effects it had in your daily life. You claim to
be an expert on TM "doctrine," yet preoccupation with "altered
states" is very strongly discouraged in TM, since it can be very
counterproductive. One has to wonder whether whatever "negative
effects" you claim to have experienced were the result of being
so seriously "off the program."
That's why we should know more about the "negative effects" you
say you experienced.
As far as "tempering what I say" as a
> suggestion, I hope you will give some thought to the implications of such
> a request to a fellow American citizen. Best of luck,
I have to say, at this point in your participation here, Curtis,
I now understand why so many of your former TM associates have a
low opinion of you. It isn't just because they feel you
misrepresent TM.
The sleaziness and hypocrisy of your above remark to Wayne is
extraordinary.
To suggest that Wayne even remotely attempted to infringe on your
right to free speech with his request that you "temper what you
say" is beneath contempt. By omitting the context, you make that
insinuation sound marginally more plausible. But, of course, in
context it was nothing of the kind.
Just for the record, let's look again at that context. Wayne
wrote:
I think it would be only fair if you gave us a new quote to use
when confronted by the "defection of a high ranking official"
business. Something on the order of how you enjoyed your TM
experience (as you said). Maybe you could add that teachers are
not systematically instructed to deceive, that new meditators are
not called "the unenlighted" behind their backs, that most people
who learn TM integrate it easily into their daily lives and are
not part of a cult. That would be terrific. Each time Mr.Skolnick
or Mr. Knapp pull out the "SIMS Shuffle" or "Curtis Mailloux
said" people who feel that TM isn't getting a fair shake could
add "well he also said ......"
Please understand that I am not asking you in any way to deny what you
lived through.
(Note in particular this assertion of Wayne's.)
I and I am sure other TMers throughly respect the validity of
your experience. I am very happy that you found growth and
happiness in your life since quitting the movemen . It seems
obvious to me that that can be accomplished without TM. I have
friends who feel meditation isn't right for them either. No
problem. I'm just asking you to qualify your former statement to
show that what you experienced isn't necessarily the way it is
for most people who meditate or for that matter teach meditation.
I am asking you to temper what you said so that those quotes can
no longer be used by unscrupulous individuals who are waging war
with TM and won't be satisfied until the entire world is
convinced it is all a sham. What a fantastic way that would be to
reconcile with your old TM friends and prove good will.
Now let's look once again at Curtis's disgraceful response:
As far as "tempering what I say" as a
> suggestion, I hope you will give some thought to the implications of such
> a request to a fellow American citizen. Best of luck,
What Wayne was very politely pointing out is that the quote
published in JAMA has *already* been very substantially qualified
by what Curtis has subsequently posted to the newsgroup. It
turns out the JAMA quote, by Curtis's own account, was a
significant overstatement. Wayne is asking Curtis for a measure
of something most American citizens hold as a high ideal, fair
play.
Apparently fair play is not a value that's very important to
Curtis. We might have wanted to give him the benefit of the
doubt about the discrepancies in his accounts of TM, but his
thinly veiled, cowardly attack on Wayne makes that impossible.
Curtis has now assured us he was referring only to his own
personal experience, despite his repeated use of "we" in the JAMA
quote.
He has revealed that "SIMS Shuffle" was a joke between him and
Jerry Jarvis, not something SIMS teachers were required to
master as a matter of policy.
He has confirmed (but neglected to explain) that TM does *not*
"exploit...fascination with the exotic, especially what comes
from the East," as the JAMA quote had it, but rather attempts to
downplay any such connection.
He has explained that his claims about TM teachers "lying" really
referred to their teaching what they deem appropriate to the
students' level of interest.
He has asserted, as Wayne notes, that he enjoyed his experience
with TM.
Perhaps most important, after being asked directly to provide
some explicit examples of how teachers were "told it was often
necessary to deceive the unenlightened," he has failed to come up
with any. Nor did he respond to Wayne's straightforward question
as to whether Curtis really ever referred to beginning TMers as
"the unenlightened."
Wayne, I don't think we really need anything new from Curtis. We
can simply quote what he's posted on the newsgroup the next time
someone waves the "SIMS Shuffle" banner. Readers can draw their
own conclusions about the contrast between the two, and about the
sort of person who could make the latter remarks without
apparently feeling any discomfort at ever having made the former,
for quotation in a prestigious medical journal, to begin with.
Were I a journalist who found this kind of significant
modification being made to statements I had quoted in good faith,
I sure as heck would want to publish a correction, and an apology
to readers who may have been misled by them. I would also want
to track down all those who had repeated the quote in their own
articles and make sure they knew of the subsequent modifications
so they could inform *their* readers of the dubiousness of the
original remarks.
Somehow I don't think Andrew is going to do that. Perhaps we
should put together a Curtis Mailloux FAQ juxtaposing the JAMA
quote and others Curtis has had published with the qualifications
he's made here, and send it out to the various publications his
words have appeared in.
I also want to take very strong exception once again to the
cheapening and trivialization of the right of free speech by
those who find it a handy weapon to undermine or discredit
dissent to their own perspectives, as Curtis has just attempted
to do. Such people are defenders of free speech in name only.
In fact, they are just as much its enemies as those who directly
attempt to infringe on free speech rights. By confusing and
subverting the issue for their own ends, they make it easier for
the real opponents of free speech to do their dirty work.
It's interesting to me that we've seen this tactic used here so
much by the anticult faction, who make such self-righteous noise
about championing human rights and "psychological freedom." If
there was ever a manipulative, cynical use of the "thought
stopper," one of the primary tools of closet fascists, it's the
inappropriate invocation of the right to free speech where it was
never an issue, in an unscrupulous attempt to cast a dissenter in
an unfavorable light.
Cblues101
Hi Wayne and the "private only E mailers",
I would like to respond to Wayne's post but first I would like to respond
to some private E Mails I have recieved without mentioning any names. I
have enjoyed these discussions and appreciate anyone taking the time to
respond.
I have been criticized for not taking a stand to back up my gita quote
claim that one e mailer said was "Chicken " of me. OK lets get out the
book and see exactly what it says...
Page 159 hardcover "The realized man should not CONFUSE the ignorant" My
quote was " the wise should not DELUDE the ignorant" How could I have
misquoted the text with an equivalent word? Because maharishi himself
when referring to this verse says on June 1, 1974, in Arosa Switzerland
:" We talk to them on ther level of understanding. Don't delude the
ignorant" It's right at the beginning of the tape. In fact in the many
years I listened to maharishi I never heard him refere to it in any other
way than do not delude the ignorant. Later maharishi says " The realized
should not create a division in such a man's mind. He should not talk to
him of the separateness of the Self from activity, otherwise the ignorant
man may lose interest in practical life, and if this happens he will never
be able to gain realization." As a full time member I heard this guote
more times than I can count to justify hiding private information. The
justification is to make sure the person doesn't miss their opportunity
for enlightenment. I have had a few E Mails from teachers making this
point to me to try to get me to stop giving my side of the story. So why
would Judy claim that I misquoted the gita? To discredit my claim to have
as good an understanding of TM doctrine as any teacher. Also because she
is right when she says that in the context of the verse he is using it in
a specific context that does not say "lie to the public". My point is
that this is used to justify deceptive answers to the public by people in
the movement, not that is is written that way in his books. Anyone who
has worked full time in a TM organization and claims that this phrase was
never used to justify a public and private teaching is not being honest.
It is all for the good of the student that this is done. Otherwise he
might not believe enough to practice. Then after he practices we
encouraged him to take an in residence course. This is how to lead a
person to believe things he wouldn't ordinarily believe if the facts were
given upfront.
Some people commented on what they called Judy's "rude tone and hostility
towards me" I appreciate these people for trying to protect me but I knew
about Judy's style coming in to this group and do not object. At least
she is willing to discuss these points sincerely. Remember Judy believes
that either I am lying about my experience in TM or that I missed the
point of maharishi's teaching. She believes that I have done harm to a
group who she feels does real good in the world. From that perspective I
think it is wonderful that she is discussing these points at all.
Certainly her aim is to discredit what I am saying and I would do the same
in her position. Believe me when I say that her tone is quite civil
compared to many who have contacted me personally!
Also I wanted to clairify what I ment by trying to avoid ad hominin
attacks. This term is used when a person dismisses your argument by name
calling instead of talking about the issues. It is not the name calling
that I object to, it is the dodging of issues. People are free to call me
any name they want but in order for me to discuss I need to stick to the
points. In some cases Judy has accused me of dodging certain issues.Given
the time we both have to devote to this discussion I do not feel compelled
to perfectly follow her priorities for discussion. I am trying to get
across points that interest me. I don't believe for a minute that I will
convince her of anything. It is just a place where we can agree to
disagree and have some fun doing it. I don't know how seriously she takes
this excercise but I have no illusions about proving anything to people
who believe in TM. Considering how far apart Judy and I are in our
opinion of TM I think we have done a pretty good job of avioding personal
attacks. Judy and I do not know each other personally so I don't mind if
her criticism for what I say is very sharp. I hope anyone reading these
posts can see beyond our style of expression and evaluate what we are
debating form your own point of view. Speaking of that I have also been
criticized for many spelling errors. Some are typos caused by me typing
and sending without editing, due to time, and some are actual spelling
errors. If Judy is the writer's friend, then perhaps I am the writer
nightmare. Sorry!
Now to respond to some of Waynes points...
If TM helped you more than other practices of relaxation then no wonder
you like it and believe in it. I would too with your experience. I still
think the" TM is different from any other relaxation technique" claim in
not true. What you have provided is what is called anecdotial evidence
and is your personal experience. It is no more valid than my personal
experience that I find I don't need TM to relax or to get more energy in
scientific circles. If TM's claims to uniqueness were really justified
don't you think it would be causing more of a stur in scientific circles?
The stir is all in the minds of TM practicers. The reason is that people
have cought on to the practice of TM research done by TM people. That
explains a lot about TM results.
Both you and Judy mention John Knapp's trance net I have visited that site
once and do not have enough interest to find out everything he is saying
about TM. I
have my own point of view on TM and if I am going to discuss TM at all I
prefer to talk to people like Judy who believes in it and is willing to
challenge me. I wished him well because that is me being polite. I also
wish Judy well but that doesn't in any way mean I agree with everything
she says. I separate the person from what they believe. As Judy pointed
out I can't even accurately tell you where each quote I myself made in the
press. All I can do is try to convey what I ment and to clairify that I
do not retract things I said. I can't control what people write but for
the most part the spirit of my meaning was conveyed.
As far as criticizing Andrew's article... I really should read it again.
I liked it when I read it when it first came out. The press has a hard
time getting the truth out of the movement and I think this is deliberate
on the part of the movement. Since Chopra himself, the man called
Danvantari by the TM group, has been bounced out of favor I am surprised
any TM person would defend him. I will read it again. As far the claim
that TM products have feces in them, this caused Davies and Chalmers to
lose their medical licenses in England. The American Jjournal show told
me they also found this to be true. If you read the Charaka Samhita which
is the main scriptural source for Ayur veda, you will read all about the
medicinal use of feces. Andrew was decieved and he resented this
deliberate deception.. Just think about the implication of people with a
fiduciary relationship with a product publishing a self promotion posing
as research in JAMA. If he didn't come out of that experience with the
exact understanding of the TM group that a long time member has I
understand. He offered Chopra to do a double blind test on his claim to
read disease through pulse. Chopra refused and this was when I began to
realize that Chopra, who should know better through his medical training,
was not just an innocent believer. He is very conscious of the deceptions
he promotes.
Your experience with teachers who do not seem to act like I described does
not in any way refute that there are ones who do. I reacted to you asking
me to "tone down" what I was saying because you are starting to respond
like a protector of the faith. COME AND SEE US ALL FREE PIC'S -
pic204.jpg (1/1) 1e you that the movement I describe at the full
timer's level will reject him. By taking that position he is not
following TM doctrine. If a teacher doesn't follow the doctrine will they
seem as cultish? Of course not.
Yes I do believe that my " wonderful " friends who still are deeply
involved are wrong about TM. Do you know anyone on purusha? Talk to some
of them and you will understand better why my experience seems different
than your local center people.
I don't think you sound aggressive. I think it is great that you are
willing to discuss these issues. As I said before you have much more
information about TM than I had at your stage of involvement. I am not
encouraging you to quit TM or not get more involved. That is your freedom
of choice and it sounds like you have taken a lot of time to consider all
points, even those that you have concluded are wrong. I speak out against
TM to give another side. I hope in future posts to lay out some specific
points that I feel about TM. Both in the press and with my discussions
with Judy I have my own perspective guided by the questions. I have
enjoyed this but do hope to post my position without having it be in
reaction to questions. I think it is really great to have such
discussions about TM and I love the freedom of the internet. Even if
someone says things that are lies in our opinion, this freedom is really
important. I have lived under the alternative and it is very unpleasant.
Best Wishes,
Curtis Mailloux
NaBoB
I have a question I ask myself but cannot seem to find an answer for. If
anyone can enlighten me, I would appreciate it.
Maharishi first offered TM through the Spiritual Regeneration Movement.
Although I understand the reasoning for scientific validation, still I
wonder what happened to this spiritual aspect or is it reserved only for
those willing to serve the "master". Given the current focus on all
things spiritual, would this not be appropriate to meet the need of the
time?
What first attracted me to TM was its underlying spiritual element. That
is my bias. I started meditating in 1972 and continue today. I am more
involved with the local center activities and projects than in years
past. I have seen a change in the teachers in our area. They seem to be
making less effort to "appear" spiritually enlightened and as a result I
have overcome a certain aversion to associating with them. Maybe I just
have less expectations today. In the early days it seemed like everyone
was "trying to act" enlightened and it came across as being "holier than
thou" and/or phony.
I realize this is all based upon my own perception and it is not really
all that significant when it comes to appreciating the benefits I have
received from TM. I am most grateful that I didn't have to immerse
myself in the "movement" or organization aspect to experience these
benefits. All I had to do was sit quietly.
The reason I started TM was to convince my partner of the time that she
didn't need to pay someone to learn how to do nothing. Nothing I said
seemed to work so I though I better go and get more ammunition by
learning what it was about. It cost me $35.00 back then and I have since
gotten my fourth advanced technique about 18 months ago. She is no
longer meditating. She was on TTC in Switzerland and taught for a couple
of years but "real life" (her words) became more important.
Since my initiation, that awakening has only continued to expand. During
my first meditation, I experienced a sense of awe in the wonder of
creation and the awe of the unconditionality in being the creator. That
was certainly a spiritual experience for me.
It seems my question has been lost in the length and breadth of this
posting. Simply put: Why doesn't the TM movement/organization offer or
return to its original intention and/or focus as an option in its public
presentations?
This is not a criticism - just a query.
Susan Seifert
In article <qhw-oq2B...@ziplink.net>, jst...@ziplink.net wrote:
[a whole lot snipped]
Judy, referring to Curtis:
> He has revealed that "SIMS Shuffle" was a joke between him and
> Jerry Jarvis, not something SIMS teachers were required to
> master as a matter of policy.
Did anyone else notice Steve Guich's recent post in which he mentioned he
recently saw Jerry and asked him about this, and Jerry replied that he had
never heard the expression "SIMS Shuffle?"
I haven't seen Jerry for years but I recall him as exceptionally honest and
someone with a sharp mind and excellent memory. How does this jive with
Curt's statement that 'the movement widely practices a style of deception
some call the "SIMS Shuffle?" It looks like the only person who ever used
that phrase was Curt when he was interviewed for the article.
Susan Seifert
One of the big difficulties of presenting TM has always been in
communicating accurately and honestly about an experience that defies
description. How to describe the state of Being, which is beyond thought.
It's indescribable. It's not just another experience, it's a state in
which the experiencer, process of experiencing and object of experience are
one and the same.
Since transcending and higher states of consciousness are so difficult to
accurately describe, Maharishi has shied away from describing them in terms
that may be confusing to people. Religion and spirituality are areas that
generally poorly defined or confused to begin with. Spirituality and
religion mean completely different things to different people. So instead
of describing transcending in those terms, it's generally clearer to
describe it in terms of other subjects, or in terms which the movement
defines itself, such as 'enlightenment'.
You also mentioned something about those "willing to serve the 'master'"
and I've seen that phrase in this newsgroup lately.
In my experience, I've never heard Maharishi request or suggest service to
him personally. He's focused on making his programs available, period. When
he speaks to his teachers about new projects, it is always in terms of the
value of and need for the program. It is never in terms of service to
himself, 'the master' or any such thing. Some people have referred to what
they do as 'service to the master' but in my experience I've not heard him
refer to it as such, or to himself as a master that one should serve.
His attitude seems to be exemplified in an answer he gave to a reporter in
Amherst in 1971 who asked Maharishi how many followers he had. Maharishi
said he had no followers, that everyone followed his own progress. IMHO,
that applies equally to volunteering for the movement as to practising TM:
people do it for as long as they feel growth and fulfillment from it. It's
not a matter of serving anyone. It's selfish.
I hope this has been helpful.
Regards,
Cblues101
Dear Wayne and private E Mailers,
I notice on reading my quote from the gita my error of running two quotes
together. The correct quote should be> Page 159 gita
"the wise should not confuse the ignorant" This quote is even closer to
my origional than the one I incorrectly typed in.
Curtis Mailloux
Judy Stein
In article <19970209184...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
<snip>
> I have been criticized for not taking a stand to back up my gita quote
> claim that one e mailer said was "Chicken " of me. OK lets get out the
> book and see exactly what it says...
>
> Page 159 hardcover "The realized man should not CONFUSE the ignorant" My
> quote was " the wise should not DELUDE the ignorant" How could I have
> misquoted the text with an equivalent word?
It appears now you were (mis)quoting MMY's commentary (to
III:26), not the Gita itself. Since you didn't specify, I
assumed you were quoting the latter. (By the way, it's much more
useful to cite chapter and verse numbers than page numbers, since
there are different editions. Folks with another edition may
have a hard time looking up a quote when all you give is the page
number.)
Because maharishi himself
> when referring to this verse says on June 1, 1974, in Arosa Switzerland
> :" We talk to them on ther level of understanding. Don't delude the
> ignorant" It's right at the beginning of the tape. In fact in the many
> years I listened to maharishi I never heard him refere to it in any other
> way than do not delude the ignorant.
If MMY did say "Don't delude the ignorant," he was instructing
you to be *honest* with the ignorant, since "delude" means
"deceive" or "trick."
Later maharishi says " The realized
> should not create a division in such a man's mind. He should not talk to
> him of the separateness of the Self from activity, otherwise the ignorant
> man may lose interest in practical life, and if this happens he will never
> be able to gain realization." As a full time member I heard this guote
> more times than I can count to justify hiding private information. The
> justification is to make sure the person doesn't miss their opportunity
> for enlightenment.
And yet the separateness of the Self from activity isn't "hidden"
from anybody; MMY goes into extensive detail on this in his Gita
commentary, which is available at your local bookstore or
library. It's also discussed in the three days of checking when
cosmic consciousness is explained, and it's explored at great
length in advanced lectures and residence courses. It's one of
the core points of what MMY teaches, and it's crucially important
for meditators to understand in order to make sense of their
experiences.
Moreover, MMY is talking about "the realized man," not those who
are simply on the way to realization. What he's really pointing
out is that if the realized address the ignorant exclusively from
their own level of consciousness, without taking into account
that "reality is different in different states of consciousness,"
without recognizing that their own experience is completely
different from that of the ignorant, they won't communicate and
will only lead the ignorant into mood-making about the
separateness of the Self from activity.
None of this hangs together, Curtis. The "information" MMY was
referring to in the quote is not a "secret."
So why
> would Judy claim that I misquoted the gita? To discredit my claim to have
> as good an understanding of TM doctrine as any teacher.
I "claimed" you misquoted the Gita because you misquoted the
Gita. But it wasn't the misquote that was problematic; it was
your use of it to "explain" why TM teachers "lie" to the public.
Your account, reported in the press, of trying to be "a little
Maharishi" and of wanting to get a "deep buzz" from TM practice
also suggests serious lack of understanding of what MMY teaches.
And you still have given no instances of actual lies, despite
several requests from me.
Also because she
> is right when she says that in the context of the verse he is using it in
> a specific context that does not say "lie to the public". My point is
> that this is used to justify deceptive answers to the public by people in
> the movement,
Examples of deceptive answers to the public, please?
not that is is written that way in his books. Anyone who
> has worked full time in a TM organization and claims that this phrase was
> never used to justify a public and private teaching is not being honest.
> It is all for the good of the student that this is done. Otherwise he
> might not believe enough to practice. Then after he practices we
> encouraged him to take an in residence course. This is how to lead a
> person to believe things he wouldn't ordinarily believe if the facts were
> given upfront.
This just doesn't make any sense, Curtis. It's not a coherent
train of thought, not least because while you keep talking about
all these "lies" and all this "deception," you haven't given one
single example of same.
When you take a residence course, you have a sort of compressed,
accelerated experience of development of consciousness. What TM
does becomes clearer than it may be with ordinary day-to-day
practice. The effect of a residence course has nothing to do
with "facts" being given or not being given "up front"; it has to
do with validating the teaching in one's own consciousness.
Nobody has any reason to believe *anything* MMY teaches if it
doesn't have some resonance in their own experience.
And this is the means whereby TMers become more interested in the
TM teachings, on the basis of their own experience. Not even
*transcending* is extensively discussed in introductory lectures
because the attendees have not yet experienced it, and it's so
abstract it does't make much sense expressed in words.
Transcending is gone into in much more detail in the three days
of checking because by that time the student has had some actual
first-hand experience of it and can relate the discussion of
transcending to that experience.
Does this make transcending a "hidden" teaching? Are TM teachers
being deceptive because they don't go into all the details of
transcending at the introductory lectures?
It's the same pattern for everything else in the TM teachings.
It isn't a matter of "secrets" or "hiding," it's a matter of what
will make sense to the TMer at any given level of experience,
intellectual understanding, and interest.
You've failed to explain why you feel there is anything wrong
with this.
<snip>
> Also I wanted to clairify what I ment by trying to avoid ad hominin
> attacks. This term is used when a person dismisses your argument by name
> calling instead of talking about the issues. It is not the name calling
> that I object to, it is the dodging of issues. People are free to call me
> any name they want but in order for me to discuss I need to stick to the
> points. In some cases Judy has accused me of dodging certain issues.Given
> the time we both have to devote to this discussion I do not feel compelled
> to perfectly follow her priorities for discussion. I am trying to get
> across points that interest me.
Curtis, you are interested in getting certain points across, but
so far you've only made vague accusations, your presentation
hasn't been at all clear, and you've contradicted yourself on a
number of issues.
If *I* find your presentation confusing and inconsistent, how are
those who are not as knowledgeable about TM going to find it?
When you make accusations and refuse to give specifics,
moreover--and these are the points I've said you're
"dodging"--reasonable people will wonder whether you really have
anything to back them up. If you expect to convince *anybody*,
you need to support what you say with coherent specifics. If you
can't or won't do that, your presentation becomes suspect.
Suppose I were to say you have engaged in deception in your real
estate practice. Would you not demand that I provide the
specifics on which my accusation was based? If I then said I
didn't "feel compelled to perfectly follow your priorities for
discussion," what weight would anybody give my accusation?
<snip>
> debating form your own point of view. Speaking of that I have also been
> criticized for many spelling errors. Some are typos caused by me typing
> and sending without editing, due to time, and some are actual spelling
> errors. If Judy is the writer's friend, then perhaps I am the writer
> nightmare. Sorry!
Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, Curtis, I have not sent you
any email, nor have I criticized your spelling errors.
> you like it and believe in it. I would too with your experience. I still
> think the" TM is different from any other relaxation technique" claim in
> not true. What you have provided is what is called anecdotial evidence
> and is your personal experience.
There's plenty of published scientific evidence to the same
effect.
It is no more valid than my personal
> experience that I find I don't need TM to relax or to get more energy in
> scientific circles. If TM's claims to uniqueness were really justified
> don't you think it would be causing more of a stur in scientific circles?
Not necessarily more than it has actually made, which is not
insignificant by any means. Several published scientific studies
showing TM's superior effects in comparative research with
Benson's technique, "mindfulness," progressive relaxation, and
others have been widely reported in the media, including in
professional health-related publications.
> The stir is all in the minds of TM practicers. The reason is that people
> have cought on to the practice of TM research done by TM people. That
> explains a lot about TM results.
There have now been a number of studies involving independent
researchers, including the recent study published in
Hypertension, and the study on longevity of several years ago,
both of which have received substantial attention. In the case
of the latter study, the second author was a proponent of one of
the techniques to which TM was compared.
> Both you and Judy mention John Knapp's trance net I have
> visited that site once and do not have enough interest to find
> out everything he is saying about TM. I have my own point of
> view on TM and if I am going to discuss TM at all I prefer to
> talk to people like Judy who believes in it and is willing to
> challenge me.
Ah, but you don't respond to my challenges, supposedly because
you don't feel you need to be in accord with my priorities.
I wished him well because that is me being polite.
> I also wish Judy well but that doesn't in any way mean I agree
> with everything she says.
You miss the point here. The issue of your credibility is
involved. And you more than "wished him well," you mentioned in
an earlier post that you had been cooperating with him on the
Singer project.
So we can note that Curtis wants to avoid at all costs having to
take a position on the Trancenet material.
I separate the person from what they believe. As Judy pointed
> out I can't even accurately tell you where each quote I myself made in the
> press. All I can do is try to convey what I ment and to clairify that I
> do not retract things I said.
You have already as good as retracted a number of things you've
been quoted as saying, or very highly qualified them.
<snip>
> As far as criticizing Andrew's article... I really should read it again.
> I liked it when I read it when it first came out. The press has a hard
> time getting the truth out of the movement and I think this is deliberate
> on the part of the movement. Since Chopra himself, the man called
> Danvantari by the TM group, has been bounced out of favor I am surprised
> any TM person would defend him.
You are surprised that someone who was maligned unfairly in the
press would be defended by TMers just because he's out of favor
with the movement?
Really?
So TMers should be happy that Chopra was slandered in Andrew's
article and should therefore side with Andrew? Is that what
you're saying?
I will read it again. As far the claim
> that TM products have feces in them, this caused Davies and Chalmers to
> lose their medical licenses in England.
No, it most certainly did not. The report that *one* sample of
*one* herbal preparation contained bacteria from feces (as
opposed to fecal material) was not included in the action against
Davies and Chalmers, according to Andrew Skolnick himself in a
post to this newsgroup, which I'll quote if you like. That
report was challenged by experts testifying for the two
physicians, who maintained the bacteria could not have been of
animal origin. The issue was never decided and was not included
in the charges against the two physicians.
The American Jjournal show told
> me they also found this to be true.
They who? If American Journal said what you just did above, it
was simply mistaken.
If you read the Charaka Samhita which
> is the main scriptural source for Ayur veda, you will read all about the
> medicinal use of feces.
Now, here's yet another instance where your credibility, indeed
your willingness to distort the facts in the interests of bashing
TM, becomes a serious issue. You are well aware TM does not use
feces in any of its preparations, no matter what may or may not
be in the Charaka Sahita. This remark is typical of TM-Ex's
deceptive tactics.
*If* there were bacteria from feces in that single sample--which
is highly questionable (the sample was destroyed in the testing,
so the report could not be verified; the bacteria may not have
been of fecal origin in any case; and there were some potential
conflict of interest problems with regard to the person who did
the testing)--it would have been a matter of accidental
contamination, not deliberate inclusion.
The FDA thoroughly investigated Maharishi Ayur-Veda preparations
(at Skolnick's instigation) and found no contamination
whatsoever. It's a nonissue.
(When you read the article again, note the paragraph in which
Andrew indignantly lists "plant material" as one of the
purportedly suspicious components of MA-V herbal preparations.)
> Andrew was decieved and he resented this deliberate deception.
*Andrew* was not deceived. He had nothing to do with the
original article by Chopra et al. And there are very serious
questions as to whether any deception occurred at all, at least
on the side of the authors of the original article. This has
been discussed at some length in the newsgroup. There are major
problems with Andrew's account of the whole situation.
. Just think about the implication of people with a
> fiduciary relationship with a product publishing a self promotion posing
> as research in JAMA.
Wrong. The Chopra article did not "pose as research." It was a
brief review article that gave an overview of traditional Indian
Ayur-Veda and its current revival as Maharishi Ayur-Veda. (You
haven't even read it, have you?) Only one MA-V product was
mentioned, and JAMA knew before the article was ever published
that Chopra and Sharma had been consultants to the firm that
distributed that product. Moreover, it was subsequently
established that none of the authors had a personal financial
interest at the time the article was published--nor were any
claims made in Andrew's article that the authors would have
profited from their article (although he did his best to imply
this was the case without actually saying so).
I don't know what your TM experience was, Curtis, but I do know a
great deal about Andrew's article and the circumstances
surrounding it. Should I assume the degree of accuracy in your
comments about Andrew's article reflects the degree of accuracy
in your account of your TM experience?
If he didn't come out of that experience with the
> exact understanding of the TM group that a long time member has I
> understand.
It's not a matter of "understanding," it's a matter of Andrew's
having published an "expose" filled with half-truths,
distortions, and misleading statements designed to give an
impression contrary to fact, starting with the "deception" charge
against Chopra et al. That has been very well documented on this
newsgroup.
He offered Chopra to do a double blind test on his claim to
> read disease through pulse. Chopra refused and this was when I began to
> realize that Chopra, who should know better through his medical training,
> was not just an innocent believer. He is very conscious of the deceptions
> he promotes.
There is no logic to this conclusion.
Chopra made the point that pulse diagnosis involves consciousness
as the most important factor, and that a double-blind test would
eliminate the very mechanism that supposedly makes it work.
You may or may not believe pulse diagnosis works, but Chopra's
refusal on these grounds is hardly an indication of deception,
since if it *does* work, it wouldn't work in a double-blind test.
> Your experience with teachers who do not seem to act like I described does
> not in any way refute that there are ones who do. I reacted to you asking
> me to "tone down" what I was saying because you are starting to respond
> like a protector of the faith.
You reacted to what Wayne asked (not to "tone down" your account
but to *temper* it--in other words, to be fair) by insinuating
falsely that he was attempting to interfere with your right to
speak freely, despite the fact he explicitly said he was not
asking you in any way "to deny what you lived through."
I can't begin to express the depth of contempt I have for that
cowardly tactic, Curtis. It wouldn't change if you were the most
ardent promoter of TM. It's the action of someone who has to
resort to an underhanded personal attack because he doesn't have
a straightforward case to make. It couldn't be a clearer example
of the very ad hominem you claim to scorn.
And to follow that snipe with "Best of luck"--what a hypocrite
you are!
Your pose of magnanimity and tolerance is a sham. You just don't
have the guts to put your hostility out there.
> TM to give another side. I hope in future posts to lay out some specific
> points that I feel about TM. Both in the press and with my discussions
> with Judy I have my own perspective guided by the questions. I have
> enjoyed this but do hope to post my position without having it be in
> reaction to questions.
Now, why would you want to avoid subjecting your positions to
questioning, Curtis?
I'll be keeping a list, by the way, of the questions you haven't
answered and will post them on a regular basis. I keep archives
of all the TM discussions on the newsgroup because I've found the
anti-TMers have a propensity to distort what has been said in the
past. The archives are also useful to check back and see what
specific challenges somone has avoided addressing. (Such
avoidance is easier, of course, when one chooses not to quote the
posts one is responding to; one can assume most readers will have
forgotten what was in the original post. One can get away with
a lot that way as long as there's nobody around who keeps
archives.)
Judy Stein
In article <32FE5B...@icenter.net>,
NaBoB <na...@icenter.net> wrote:
> I have a question I ask myself but cannot seem to find an answer for. If
> anyone can enlighten me, I would appreciate it.
>
> Maharishi first offered TM through the Spiritual Regeneration Movement.
> Although I understand the reasoning for scientific validation, still I
> wonder what happened to this spiritual aspect or is it reserved only for
> those willing to serve the "master". Given the current focus on all
> things spiritual, would this not be appropriate to meet the need of the
> time?
How can the spiritual be "reserved" for anybody? I honestly
don't understand the question.
> What first attracted me to TM was its underlying spiritual element.
I couldn't have been less spiritual when I started TM, and I
strongly distrusted what spiritual elements there were (this was
in 1975, when the primary emphasis was on science).
If TM tried to insist on spirituality, it would turn away many
who, like me, weren't looking for it and didn't think it was
anything they wanted. Even if a TMer *never* discovers his/her
spirituality, s/he still benefits from the practice.
After some time meditating and some exposure to the teachings, I
discovered I had a spiritual side I hadn't even known existed.
But I never saw TM per se as a context within which to exercise
that spirituality. TM "watered the root"; the rest of the
cultivation, picking the flowers, and arranging the bouquet was
up to me.
The spirituality was *mine*, not TM's. TM just gave me the tools
to uncover it.
There's a very wide variety of spiritual systems out there in the
world, all of which are, in my understanding, compatible with TM,
TM being the sort of underlying common denominator. TM provides
the basic framework, the nature and mechanics of consciousness,
to be decorated and built upon according to one's own
inclinations and background.
I don't know why TM has to provide the decoration in addition to
the framework when there is such a magnificent profusion of
decorative schemes available to suit every taste. I think that's
turning TM into something it was never designed to be, even in
its earliest days.
(I don't mean to denigrate spiritual systems by referring to them
as "decoration." It's just a handy metaphor. One builds the
foundation and structure of one's home, and then one decorates it
according to one's own aesthetic sense.)
Cblues101
Dear Judy,
I enjoyed your last post and will try to answer what you wrote and not
just what interests me this time. I seem to have accumulated many things
which I feel I have anwered to my satisfaction but not to yours. A few
things first... Judy has never privatetly E Mailed me. Everything she has
said is posted.
My well wishes to people on this group are not a sham. I separate the
person from what they believe and have no reason to get personal with
people I don't know. I am the same on and off the screen. I like people
in general and can disagree in the specific. I asked Wayne to consider
the implications of what he was asking me when he said I should tone down.
I don't take well to people asking me to edit my expressions. It was in
no way a personal attack. I was letting him know where my personal
bounderies are for the purposes of our discussion. I have no interest or
reason to personally attack Wayne and have been quite careful not to do
so. As far as me being a hypocrite in your eyes because I also wish him
personally the best of luck...He now knows where I stand on this issue by
me asking him to think about what he was asking me to do in a country of
free speech. I still mean it and yet wish him the best personally. That
for me is honesty, not a cowardly tactic. I am hiding no hostility
I am also not saying I don't want what I write to be subject to questions.
I said If I spend all my time reacting to questions I never get to the
topics I would like to discuss. I will get there.. I am surprised that
you feel I have backed off previous answers. That is not what I have done
at all. Maybe you could be more specific. I have explained context and
shown what I ment by what I said. I will go throught your posts to see
what I have missed in answers to your questions. You seem to see a
sinister motive but there is none.
MY point about " wise not deluding the ignorant" was never that the text
SHOULD be a justification for lying in the movement. I said it was used
that way. All of your points that it shouldn't be taken that way are fine
but miss my point. I am saying it was used that way when I was full time.
You say it isn't used that way . We disagree about this. I used the
examples of the mantra's meaning and selection as examples of what I
believe are lies. But if your claim is that the movement doesn't lie
frequently then I can only believe you have never served fulltime in this
organization. This was a big deal for the press because they knew they
were not getting the full truth from TM organizations. I explained that
TM people believe that your enlightenment is at stake and they must shape
your understanding carefully. I am satisfied that I have covered this
issue with you. Your example of why service couldn't be properly
understood by a new meditator was a perfect example. I have already made
this point. The crazy thing is that the movement lying is not the big
point for me. My bigger point is that maharishi is wrong. Lying was the
press's problem with TM. I wish they would spell out the whole belief
system for new people so they could evaluate it more fairly. Instead
knowledge is doled out little by little acording to how the teacher feels
about the student's ability to understand or believe. We both seem to
agree on this Judy. We also seem to agree that the verse I mentioned in
the gita justifies this. You say not lying, I say it is used this way.
You believe that reality is different in different states of
consciousness. I don't believe in higher states of consciousness. I am
very suspicious of people who claim to be in a higher state and have a
higher reality. I was never saying that the concept of self realization
was hidden. from the public. I gave you examples of deception of the
public. You disagree that they are deceptions. You don't think TM is
related to Hindu religion. I do. I have given you quite a few examples
of what I see as lies and you Subject: INDEX FILES Nice Plump BBW's -
cathyidx.jpg [1/1] 78835 bytes
From: MAR...@PLUMPER.NET
Date: Wed Feb 5 04:04:55 1997
w people continue TM without the supporting belief system. For all its
claims about what a great stress relief it gives, people drop off just
like the Benson technique unless they get into the belief system. People
continue because of the belief system not the experience. How can I prove
this? Lets do the math. The most popular period for starting TM was 1975
when maharishi was on the cover of Time. 40,000 people were starting a
MONTH in the US. Where are these people now? Quietly enjoying their deep
rest twice a day? Most stopped within a year because they did not get the
benifits to a degree that it was worth the time. I called these people
with many volunteers for hours over many days. We concluded that without
a residence course they did not continue. Now lets take the height of the
sidhi program. 7000 people at the domes in MIU. What are the numbers now
at courses. You tell me so I can't be accused of lying. Why is this?
Because most people who tried the sidhis drop off after a few years. They
don't talk to the press and cause a fuss like I did. They just fade away
and study new systems because the sidhis are only practiced regularly by
people who get refreshed on the belief in them. The experience is not
compelling enough. Show me movement meditator and sidha numbers and I
will show you some very specific lies. They have no interest in finding
out who is practicing these techniques still, they only use the inflated
numbers of initiations and sidha courses. The movement is shrinking, not
because of anti TMers spreding falsehoods. Its because it doesn't deliver
what it promises. For people who really believe it is enjoyed just like
other spiritual groups. But as a scientific practice whose results are
self evident in experience its falure is proven by the pathetic numbers of
actual practicers in its programs. If maharishi were right he would not
have lost the thousands of people he made teachers. Now he has a
comparitive handful of believers who will hang on until he dies. The
impending power struggle will be the final blow to this tiny organization
with the cosmic claims.
I will finish answering your post tomorrow. Believe me when I say that I
do wish you well Judy. I always had your attitude of taking on other
opinions about TM when I was in the group. I always felt confident that
the claims of detractors could be delt with. That makes you a bit of a
rogue in the group though. As a policy the organization does not answer
critics. I would be curious about the movement's reaction to your work
here on the net.
Curtis Mailloux
wbs...@aol.com
>I asked Wayne to consider
>the implications of what he was asking me when he said I should tone down.
> I don't take well to people asking me to edit my expressions
Really Curtis that is too much. I have considered the implications and have come to the not surprising conclusion that asking you to temper, not edit, not deny has absolutely nothing to do with free speech and I deeply resent your implication after what I feel to be a very polite request with all due respect to your feelings, rights and experience. I in no way asked or implied that you should retract your statement. I did not in any imaginable way imply that what you said should be censored. I asked you to add a few remarks of your own volition to qualify your statement. To make it clear that your experience is not necessarily the way it is for all meditators. To point out that it is possible to integrate the technique into one's life without becoming deeply involved in the movement.
I think and apology is in order. Read my post again and show me one thing that suggests that I would refuse your right to free speech. I am appalled that anyone would deduce that from my words. You have every right to say whatever you want. I thought ( but no longer do) that you might be concerned how your quotes were being used.
Your suggestion that I was sounding like "a defender of the faith" is a bit out of hand. I wrote that I was in no way involved with the TM movement. I simply meditate twice a day and go about my life. I have no deerskin, no beads no incense. Sorry to disappoint you.
Wayne Byars
Stokes Dickins
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
>w people continue TM without the supporting belief system. For all its
>claims about what a great stress relief it gives, people drop off just
>like the Benson technique unless they get into the belief system. People
>continue because of the belief system not the experience.
"Transcendental Meditation: One Man's Experience by Sidney Reisberg
It was the winter of 1971. At the age of 59, I was in a new position
as a dean at State University of New York-Albany, charged with
teaching teachers how to teach in the newly created classrooms that
held anywhere from 60 to 480 students each.
It was a daunting assignment, exciting and full of the tensions to be
expected in a newly built university, upgraded from a sleepy teacher
college.
I was good at creating a new paradigm for teaching in these changed
conditions, but I was not very good at dealing with teachers who were
full of themselves and down on students "who are just not ready to
learn"--a scenario in which a man needs to be settled and not easily
rattled.
Enter Transcendental Meditation. My wife was a true seeker, perhaps
due, in part, to the fact that polio, at the age of 19, had left her
with an unpredictable nervous system. She had tried everything and,
six months earlier, had come upon TM. It seemed to steady her nervous
system. She didn't urge it on me, but her quiet well-being tempted
me.
So, one evening after dinner, I put on my overcoat and headed for the
door. "Oh," I said in response to my wife's inquiring look. "Just
for the heck of it, I'm going over to the TM lecture at the
University." She tried to mask a shock of surprise at her wise-acre
husband's willingness to try something new. No need to be shocked. I
was not about to try anything. Just going to give a dose of that
"healthy skepticism" I proudly brought to everything.
Like a child again
I found myself scampering for one of the few empty seats in an
auditorium that held 500 people. The lecturer was a young man in his
20s. You could hear a pin drop as he quietly explained the process
and the meaning of Transcendental Meditation. Two hours later I
buttoned up for the 12-minute walk across campus to my house.
I was in a very pensive mood, not so much about what he had said, but
about what this young man was like. I was in a kind of reverie. As
if I were a child again, I was saying to my mother, "I want one of
those." I soon realized that I was really saying, "I want to be like
that young man."
What he spoke, he expressed not like something learned, but like
something that is just logical and reasonable. He was so gentle and
unaggressively assured of who he was and where he was in this world.
I was 59 and he was, maybe, 24. I was a Ph,D. I was a Dean. I had a
Bronze Star and a battlefield promotion to Captain at Anzio, and I had
been successful in business as well as in academia. What? "I want to
be like that young man??" Wow, atoms were being smashed!
I learned TM the next week. Now, 25 years later, I am almost 85. I
had retired from the university at the mandatory 65, and then went on
to work as vice president of a corporation until my second retirement
at 83. The way I feel, and according to my doctor's chart, living to
100 or more doesn't seem at all unreasonable. Twenty-five years ago
that would have been ridiculous. Not only was I not feeling great,
but my father and his two brothers all died in their early 60s. So
much for genetics.
But what's that got to do with TM? Not subjective touchy-feely
stuff--just the facts, man, just the facts! Well, after I had been
meditating for about 10 years, I had occasion to visit my family in
New York. I had this idea for how I might possibly get the facts.
Why not drop in on Dr. Greenwald who, with his father before him, had
been our family doctor since the beginning of the century. "Doc, do
you still have the results of my last complete work-up some 12 years
ago?" He did. "No, nothing's bothering me--I would just like you to
repeat precisely the same work-up."
Two days later I came back for the results. Dr. Greenwald's eyebrows
nearly touched his hairline as he read off the numbers. I was in
better physical shape at 69 than I was at 57. Out of 15 parameters, I
showed considerable improvement in six and another six were unchanged.
Only three were down a bit. There had been no significant change in
my lifestyle during this period, other than the regular practice of
TM.
It was not that much of a surprise to me. A few weeks earlier, tests
showed that my biological age was 23 years younger than my
chronological age. So much for the physiological improvement. People
often ask, "Does Tm make you feel more relaxed?" Certainly it does,
but that is incidental to the significant results.
Self knowledge
Perhaps the most significant change in my life was that TM gave me a
profound piece of knowledge--knowledge of myself. From my reading I
had known that the preeminent precept for living life that threads its
way all through history is "know thyself." Back in the dawn of
Christianity, Jesus said, "For whoever has not known himself, has
known nothing, but whoever has know himself has simulaneously achieved
knowledge about the depth of all things."
So, too, was it the summary wisdom of Ovid and Socrates. The
inscription at the entrance to the Temple of Apolla reads: "Know
Thyself." Chaucer expressed it as "Full wise is he that himself can
know." Browning wrote, "Truth is within ourselves." And Montaigne,
"If a man does not know himself, how should he know his functions and
his power."
Yes, I knew that it had been the prime advice of practically every
weise man through the ages. But how to get that profound piece of
knowledge? Oh, yes, I could define myself at any given time by my
occupation, education, religion, dress, age and height, residence,
political persuasion, etc. I was fortunate enough to have many
desirable outer trappings, but something very important was mission in
my life.
I stood mute before a simple question, "Who are you?" Whenever I came
to a fork in the road, how was I to choose which one would suit me if
I did not know me?
TM changed my life with a procedure, a simple, easy, natural technique
for going within to the real me. Not doing. Just being.
Knowledge is power, and the supreme power is knowledge of the self."
Of course, this is just one man's story. As someone in a TM-EX paper
so aptly put it. "Some people who do TM die." The TM experience is
complex, ambiguous, always interesting. Something like the way life
is. But the, that's just it. TM is a simple, natural technique to
rest deeply, at will, twice a day and to plunge into the richly
diverse experience of the particular individual who's practicing it.
The key is to do it regularly as directed. The something good that
happens is the natural unfolding of more and more of the design
potential of the individual.
In his poem, Love, Buckmister Fuller wrote:
Conceptual totality
Is inherently prohibited,
But exactitude can be bettered
And measurement refined
By progressively reducing
Residual errors,
Thereby disclosing
The directions of truths
Every progressing
Toward the eternally exact
Utter perfection,
Complete understanding,
Absolute wisdom,
Unattainable by humans
But affirming God
Omnipermeative,
Omniregenerative,
All incorruptible
As infinitely inclusive
Exquisite love.
Nobel prize winner, Wislawa Syzonborska wrote this poem:
On Death Without Exaggeration
There is no life
that couldn't be immortal
if only for a moment.
Telling the truth about TM without exaggeration or denial of its
efficacy when used as instructed is a worthy goal. You are right,
Curtis, that many people learned TM. My recollection of phoning
people who had learned TM was much more varied than yours.
There were people who had just drifted away from doing TM, like people
leave off an exercise program they had once taken up. Some people
were happy to come in for a check up of their practice to ensure that
everything was going okay. Some people said they were still
practicing TM, but didn't want to have a check at that time. One
person said, "Oh, I should be doing that. But, I don't have time to
be checked now."
For the purposes of looking at what happens when people do continue to
practice TM regularly, as instructed, one place to look is in
insurance records. That is what was done in a study published in
American Journal of Managed Care. In the area of cardiovascular
health, the most expensive area for insurance companies, The Maharishi
Vedic Approach to Health group had 11.4 times lower hospitalization
rates.
For cancer the reduction was 3.3 times lower, and seven times lower
for mental health and drug abuse.
It seems to me that this study shows that people who practice TM and
have incorporated MAV into their health care strategy, in the setting
of a university that supports TM practice and MAV routines, look
pretty good in insurance statistics. It also shows that not
everyone who practices TM has the same results as Sidney Reisberg had.
It shows that it is possible some people who learn TM and do MAV,
still have some difficult situations to deal with.
That was the experience of Betty who started for help with blood
pressure. She was 69 when she started. Her blood pressure was
improved, but there were some other disease processes that were ripe
and for which she had to be hospitalized. When I went to see her in
the hospital, she said, "I couldn't have gotten through this without
TM."
It's experiences like that, Curtis, that keep TM teachers teaching,
Regards,
Barbara
Judy Stein
In article <19970212012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
> Dear Judy,
> I enjoyed your last post and will try to answer what you wrote and not
> just what interests me this time. I seem to have accumulated many things
> which I feel I have anwered to my satisfaction but not to yours. A few
> things first... Judy has never privatetly E Mailed me. Everything she has
> said is posted.
Thank you.
<snip>
> so. As far as me being a hypocrite in your eyes because I also wish him
> personally the best of luck...He now knows where I stand on this issue by
> me asking him to think about what he was asking me to do in a country of
> free speech. I still mean it and yet wish him the best personally. That
> for me is honesty, not a cowardly tactic. I am hiding no hostility
Sorry, but I don't believe you. You'll just have to deal with
that. There's too much disguised, passive-aggressive hostility
in your posts. The "American citizen" bit was the most overt,
and there was no excuse or justification for it whatsoever.
> I am also not saying I don't want what I write to be subject to questions.
> I said If I spend all my time reacting to questions I never get to the
> topics I would like to discuss. I will get there.. I am surprised that
> you feel I have backed off previous answers. That is not what I have done
> at all. Maybe you could be more specific. I have explained context and
> shown what I ment by what I said.
And what you "meant," as you explain it now, has been very
different from what you were quoted as having said. Just for one
example, the "SIMS shuffle" bit, which you now say was only a
joke you had with Jerry Jarvis rather than, as was implied in
Andrew's article, a matter of movement policy. (However, there
was a post here not long ago from someone who had spoken with
Jerry Jarvis and asked him about the phrase; according to the
poster, Jerry said he'd never heard it.)
I will go throught your posts to see
> what I have missed in answers to your questions. You seem to see a
> sinister motive but there is none.
You'd do a lot to allay my suspicions if you'd quote what you
were responding to.
> MY point about " wise not deluding the ignorant" was never that the text
> SHOULD be a justification for lying in the movement. I said it was used
> that way. All of your points that it shouldn't be taken that way are fine
> but miss my point. I am saying it was used that way when I was full time.
> You say it isn't used that way.
No, I never said it wasn't used that way. I don't know whether
it was or not.
We disagree about this. I used the
> examples of the mantra's meaning and selection as examples of what I
> believe are lies.
I never got that post; I just today retrieved it from the Minet
archive and will respond to it separately.
But if your claim is that the movement doesn't lie
> frequently then I can only believe you have never served fulltime in this
> organization.
No, I never have. On the other hand, I've never heard any
*claim* that the movement lies supported, including yours.
This was a big deal for the press because they knew they
> were not getting the full truth from TM organizations.
Well, there may be a significant distinction here between lying
and not giving the "full truth." It depends very much on the
situation, who is making the evaluation, and the motivations of
the people who are not giving the "full truth." Perhaps the most
important component is whether whatever version of the truth is
being given conveys an impression contrary to fact, and if so
whether that is deliberate. Also important is what kinds of
consequences result.
I explained that
> TM people believe that your enlightenment is at stake and they must shape
> your understanding carefully. I am satisfied that I have covered this
> issue with you. Your example of why service couldn't be properly
> understood by a new meditator was a perfect example. I have already made
> this point.
You haven't addressed why you consider any of this *lying*,
Curtis, or why it isn't "fair," or any of the other accusations
you've leveled at it.
The crazy thing is that the movement lying is not the big
> point for me. My bigger point is that maharishi is wrong.
Maharhishi is wrong about what??
Lying was the
> press's problem with TM. I wish they would spell out the whole belief
> system for new people so they could evaluate it more fairly.
How can they possibly "evaluate it fairly" when they're new,
Curtis? Why should they evaluate anything they don't have to be
directly involved with in any case?
You know what I think? I think the reason you harp so much on
this "lying" accusation is that you know prospective TMers would
be thoroughly confused if they had everything dumped on them at
once, and would be less likely to take up TM--which is what you
want to happen, for fewer people to take up TM.
Instead
> knowledge is doled out little by little acording to how the teacher feels
> about the student's ability to understand or believe. We both seem to
> agree on this Judy.
I said it was according to the student's interest, which depends
largely on his/her experience of the TM technique.
One of the problems I have with your posts is that you don't
quote what you're responding to. That gives you license to
"interpret" what somebody else has said, and you have several
times now done so incorrectly.
We also seem to agree that the verse I mentioned in
> the gita justifies this.
No, we don't agree on this. In fact, I said precisely the
opposite, in some detail. How could you so misconstrue what I
wrote, Curtis?
> You say not lying, I say it is used this way.
Again, I never said it was not used this way. I said if it *was*
used that way, it was completely contrary to the sense and
context of the verse.
> You believe that reality is different in different states of
> consciousness.
No, I didn't say I believed this. I said this premise was the
basis for the Gita verse, and that it referred to those who were
enlightened not speaking exclusively in terms of the reality of
their state of consciousness, a very different notion from that
of teaching according to the expressed interest of the student.
I don't believe in higher states of consciousness. I am
> very suspicious of people who claim to be in a higher state and have a
> higher reality.
That's fine, but you can't use *your* lack of belief to claim
someone else who *does* hold that belief is thereby lying.
I was never saying that the concept of self realization
> was hidden. from the public.
I didn't say you had, I was pointing out your train of thought
logically implied it. You expressed yourself very unclearly.
I gave you examples of deception of the
> public. You disagree that they are deceptions. You don't think TM is
> related to Hindu religion. I do. I have given you quite a few examples
> of what I see as lies and you
(Unfortunately, your post was interrupted here by some
cybergarbage.) So far, you've mentioned the claim that mantras
don't have meaning, which I'll address elsewhere. You've not
mentioned any other examples of anything that could be construed
to fit the definition of "lies" that I've seen.
As to TM being related to Hinduism, I explained why it isn't, and
you never addressed my explanation, you've just reasserted your
original statement.
<cybergarbage deleted>
> w people continue TM without the supporting belief system. For all its
> claims about what a great stress relief it gives, people drop off just
> like the Benson technique unless they get into the belief system.
Some people do, others do not. I have a number of friends who
aren't into the "belief system" at all, who have never been on a
residence course, who have been meditating regularly for many
years simply because they feel better when they do.
People
> continue because of the belief system not the experience. How can I prove
> this? Lets do the math. The most popular period for starting TM was 1975
> when maharishi was on the cover of Time. 40,000 people were starting a
> MONTH in the US. Where are these people now? Quietly enjoying their deep
> rest twice a day? Most stopped within a year because they did not get the
> benifits to a degree that it was worth the time. I called these people
> with many volunteers for hours over many days. We concluded that without
> a residence course they did not continue.
Where's the math here, Curtis? It isn't "math" just because you
mention a figure of how many people were starting TM at some
point in TM's history.
Now lets take the height of the
> sidhi program. 7000 people at the domes in MIU. What are the numbers now
> at courses. You tell me so I can't be accused of lying. Why is this?
I have no idea what you're asking. There was only one point I
know of at which 7000 sidhas assembled at the domes, and that was
the Taste of Utopia assembly in 1983. Could you be more
specific?
> Because most people who tried the sidhis drop off after a few years.
Sure, people drop out. What's your basis for saying "most" do?
You said "Let's do the math," but you haven't done any so far.
They
> don't talk to the press and cause a fuss like I did. They just fade away
> and study new systems because the sidhis are only practiced regularly by
> people who get refreshed on the belief in them.
That's simply not true, Curtis. How could you possibly make such
a flat and totally unsupported statement, one that is, moreover,
contradicted by a significant amount of personal testimony? I
see such testimony all the time on the TM mailing list and have
heard it from many other sources.
The "belief," such as it is, *comes from the experience*, not the
other way around.
What has always been fascinating to me is to hear people
describing "raw" experiences. They do so in terms that are
completely different from TM's terminology, struggling to find
words for something unfamiliar and unexpected. If beliefs were
all there were, you wouldn't see that phenomenon. You might hear
people talking about what they claimed to be experiences, but
they'd be in TM terms modeled closely on what MMY has said.
> The experience is not compelling enough.
Curtis, maybe it wasn't for you. You can't just project that
onto everyone else. Maybe you had higher (unrealistic?)
expectations.
Show me movement meditator and sidha numbers and I
> will show you some very specific lies. They have no interest in finding
> out who is practicing these techniques still, they only use the inflated
> numbers of initiations and sidha courses.
The movement doesn't keep track of who practices and who doesn't;
it never has, and doesn't consider it appropriate to do so. All
it *has* are the figures about how many have started. *Usually*
care is taken to state this explicitly when numbers are cited;
sometimes it is not. Where it isn't--where someone uses the
initiation figures and states it in the form "so and so many are
practicing TM"--it's incorrect, but I think it's more
carelessness than a deliberate lie. Most of the "official"
movement literature states that these are the numbers who are on
record as having started.
> The movement is shrinking,
Documentation, please.
not
> because of anti TMers spreding falsehoods.
Its because it doesn't deliver
> what it promises. For people who really believe it is enjoyed just like
> other spiritual groups. But as a scientific practice whose results are
> self evident in experience its falure is proven by the pathetic numbers of
> actual practicers in its programs. If maharishi were right he would not
> have lost the thousands of people he made teachers. Now he has a
> comparitive handful of believers who will hang on until he dies.
Documentation, please. I think you're talking through your hat,
Curtis.
The
> impending power struggle will be the final blow to this tiny organization
> with the cosmic claims.
>
> I will finish answering your post tomorrow. Believe me when I say that I
> do wish you well Judy. I always had your attitude of taking on other
> opinions about TM when I was in the group. I always felt confident that
> the claims of detractors could be delt with. That makes you a bit of a
> rogue in the group though. As a policy the organization does not answer
> critics. I would be curious about the movement's reaction to your work
> here on the net.
I have no idea. As far as I know, the movement doesn't pay any
attention to what goes on on alt.m.t. I have certainly never
been contacted by the movement. Some movement *types* have
personally chastised me, some in public and some in private, for
taking on the detractors, but an even larger number of movement
types have cheered me on.
I'm not a "rogue in the group" simply because I'm not *in* any
group. I've never been a movement person. I dislike the
movement intensely, as a matter of fact. I just don't make the
mistake of equating the movement with what MMY teaches, and I
don't think its motives are malicious or underhanded.
Judy Stein
In article <19970208183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
<snip>
> About your comments on my City paper quote... I have respect for Susan and
> the article she wrote. She did however condense some things I said into a
> form that I was not comfortable with. For example her statement about me
> saying I was a little maharishi. I know what she ment and at the same
> time I did not say it that way. Because she felt strongly about not
> having me put spin on her article I was not able to correct this small
> point.
Not able to correct a misquote? I don't think so, Curtis. That
wasn't her statement, that was a direct quote from you. If she
made a mistake in what she attributed to you in a direct quote
and wouldn't change it at your request, she's an irresponsible
and unethical reporter. Has nothing to do with "spin," it has to
do with accuracy.
I don't think you did ask her to change it. I think you either
said what you were quoted as saying or were satisfied with her
version of what you said at the time.
The spirit of what I ment was intact however. MY point was that
> in TM I was on a path for human perfection. This perfectionistic standard
> was symbolized by the maharishi. I was not deluded into thinking that by
> looking like maharishi I was being like him. I was just trying to do all
> the practices I could to further my evolution and in the monastic context
> I was living in the behaviors mentioned in the article were common.
> Everyone didn't have a deer skin but most wore beads. My point was that I
> was at that time following maharishi's strictest program and according to
> him this was our fastest path of growth. It is not fair to point to me
> like I was some moodmaker on my own with these behaviors.
Curtis, I can always repost the quote. You were portraying
*yourself* as a moodmaker.
> Go into the dome right now and make a bead wearers count. To say
> that my goal of enlightenment was an un healthy impulse is also unfair.
You are misquoting me; I never said that.
The whole point
> of the program was supposed to be to raise the student to the level of the
> teacher. Interestingly in the movement it is built in that anyone who
> claims to have achieved this state is suspect.
Does anyone claim to have achieved this state? If so, I've never
heard of it.
Name one person who has
> been acknowledged to have achieved the goal of TM recently.
Generally TMers don't make claims about their state of
consciousness. Not because it's "suspect" but because it's
considered inappropriate. If you think there's mood-making in
the movement now, imagine what it would be like if those in
higher states of consciousness were routinely publicly identified.
I was saying
> that I felt the whole premise, seeking perfection, is bogus.
No, you never said a thing about seeking perfection being bogus, Curtis.
> I wasn't trying to set myself up as a little maharishi but was
> doing everything I could to achieve his state. This was a very
> natural goal especially considering where I was and the promises
> I was given to get me there by maharishi. As you point out the
> true meaning of moodmaking is copying the internal state of the
> enlightenent not wearing beads. I was not doing this.
Curtis, all this is beside the point. You portrayed *yourself*
as behaving absurdly in the quote. You had obviously become
obsessed with and anxious about enlightenment. There's a
difference between being one-pointed and being obsessed; you were
clearly the latter.
As far as saying that TM gives you a mental feel good buzz but not
> a significant higher state of consciousness, I stand by that statement.
And your documentation for it?
You're correct in saying higher states of consciousness aren't
just a "feel-good buzz." But I'm not sure how you could prove
your statement that TM doesn't produce significant higher states
of consciousness.
> In a rounding environment the meditate and and act formula has a very
> different balance. In Florida the emphasis was on internal experiences of
> the sidhis not our action by maharishi's direction. Again I was
> describing my experience and when viewed from another perspective is seems
> strange. To try to demonize me as an incorrect meditator is unfair.
I didn't say you were an "incorrect meditator." I said you were
a moodmaker.
> To the ongoing debate about my rank in the movement perhaps you could lay
> out the correct hierarchy for me and we can then both agree where I was in
> that system. I think with a chart you construct on the way you see it, we
> could come to an agreement. If MIU graduate, center chairman was my rank
> please explain who was above me and below me in the TM system.
What I would consider the "higher ranks" of TM are those who hold
positions on national or international staff and are responsible
for movement administration and projects and setting and implementing
movement policy on those broad levels. Center chairman are
generally responsible only for their own local areas, for
maintaining their center and supervising its activities.
> I have not in my opinion backed off of any statement in the press.
You just backed off "little maharishi." You backed off the "SIMS
shuffle" statement. You admitted the movement tries to downplay
"fascination with the East" rather than exploiting it, as you'd
been quoted as saying in Andrew's article. You admitted you were
referring to your own personal experience rather than, as the
quotes strongly suggested, movement policy generally.
> I am trying to clarify points which can be taken in different
> contexts to mean different things.
Uh-huh. In other words, you're quite willing for the readers of
JAMA and the Washington Post to have taken your quoted statements
literally. Here on alt.m.t, where your readers are knowledgeable
about TM, those same statements appear to require significant
revision.
The reason this article was written at all is in
> response to Chopra being dishonest about his relationship with the
> movement. Andrew called me to try to understand why he was being lied to.
In what instance was Andrew "lied to"? Andrew had nothing to do
with the Chopra article. Moreover, as I pointed out, there are
very significant problems with his account of Chopra's purported
dishonesty with regard to the movement.
> I explained the TM mindset to him and other press so they could get
> behind the image TM represents to the world and what I feel is a more
> accurate picture of its true beliefs.
Except you did so by misrepresenting the movement.
Your letter mentions teaching what
> is relivant to the appropriate stage. I maintain that this involves
> inaccuracies. For example the public is first told that the mantras have
> no meaning. On teacher training I was trained in the meaning of two words
> in my mantra. Notice I did not say I dug it up on my own, I was tought
> it. My mantra does have a specific meaning and I was trained in it. The
> statement that mantras do not have meanings should be altered to say,
> unless you study sanskrit, or become a teacher, in which case you will be
> required to memorize the meaning of you advanced technique mantra.
Now, Curtis, you know and I know your remarks, while very
carefully phrased to be technically accurate, are quite
misleading in terms of what we're discussing. Since they involve
teaching I gave my word to keep private, I can't point out
exactly what's misleading about them. But this is just more
evidence of your lack of credibility as far as I'm concerned.
But this is, again, beside the point. Any semantic "meaning" the
mantras may have been assigned in specific contexts is entirely
irrelevant as far as the meditator is concerned.
All
> the secrecy about the mantras is so inappropriate
> for a science. Show me any science that hides the methodology of its
> techniques.
There are excellent reasons for keeping the methodology private
that have to do with the effectiveness of practice, as you know.
The "science" bit is a red herring here. The methodology is
essentially, at this point, a "black box," in scientific terms,
and will probably have to remain so because of the nature of the
procedure. The "science" aspect of TM is based on different
criteria, including repeatability. But it's essentially a
*subjective* science.
As far as misrepresentation goes how about the claim that the
> mantra is carefully selected for the individual by a precise procedure to
> make sure the person has the correct sound for their nervous system. I
> don't think that claim holds up to scrutiny do you?
No, although there are kernels of truth in it. THe procedure
*is* precise, and there is some element of suitability for the
nervous system. But the impression was given that the procedure
was more complex than it actually is, that there were more
mantras than there actually are, and that it was crucially
important that *exactly* the right mantra be selected for a given
individual.
But these impressions haven't been given for a long time. There
was an excellent reason for them, however, which had to do with
discouraging people from "lending" their mantras to their friends
and trying to teach them how to do TM. That kind of situation is
very unlikely to result in correct practice; someone who
mistakenly believes they're practicing correctly and who
experiences no effects or negative effects is liable to give it
up as a bad job and decide meditation is not their "thing,"
thereby missing out on the opportunity to learn and practice TM
properly and obtain the benefits.
It's very difficult to explain why TM can be learned properly
only on a one-to-one basis with a trained teacher, and not from a
book or from another meditator. It was perceived to be easier,
as a practical matter, to offer the story about how mantras had
to be selected carefully for the individual. But the goal was
the same, to encourage people to learn TM properly rather than
experiment with it on their own.
Of course, you don't believe there's anything to it anyway, so as
far as you're concerned it wouldn't make any difference. But
that isn't what TM believes.
> I don't claim TM is scientific, maharishi does.
I never said you claimed TM was scientific. Where do you get
this stuff??
I think it is a system of belief that is
> religious in nature because things are taken on faith instead of proof.
> Otherwise we could say the claim of heaven by Christians is scientific you
> just have to die to prove it.
The notion of enlightement per se may be taken on faith, but
you're leaving out the experience along the way. If you have a
map of the route from NYC to LA, and you follow it successfully
as far as St. Louis, you are justified in having a certain amount
of faith the rest of the map is also accurate. Is such a faith
"religious" in nature?
With the Christian belief in heaven, there are *no* interim
checkpoints. You have to follow the map blindly all the way.
Moreover, for most people who practice TM, even faith in eventual
enlightenment doesn't enter into it; they do TM because it makes
their lives more pleasant and productive. And even for those who
think the notion of enlightenment makes good intellectual sense,
that may not be the main reason they practice TM; again, there
are sufficient benefits in everyday life to continue to practice
whether enlightenment ever occurs or not.
> The claim of higher states takes how long to prove?
Can't be pinned down, sorry.
> I bailed out at 15 years doing every technique offered. What is
> the new timetable?
There isn't one, as far as I know.
It's obvious MMY's early estimates, such as they may have been,
were overly optimistic. But most of us aren't so fixated on the
ultimate goal that we feel it has to happen in a given amount of
time, as long as we're deriving benefit along the way. It would
seem like cutting one's nose off to spite one's face to stop
doing TM because enlightenment is taking longer than MMY thought
to start with.
I am not offended by TMers believing in enlightenment.
> I am offended by people like maharishi who represent themselvesas
> enlightened.
He doesn't represent himself as enlightened, as I think I've
already noted. Others represent him as such, certainly, but he
doesn't.
What you wrote in your previous post did *imply* you were
offended by those who believe in enlightenment. Perhaps you
simply didn't express yourself clearly.
But for that matter, if one sincerely believes oneself to be
enlightened and represents oneself as such, especially if one
does so because one finds onself to be in a desirable state and
wants others to become enlightened too, why on earth should that
be *offensive* to you?? You may think they're deluded, but why
would this offend you?
I am also offended by people doleing out the beliefs of an
> organization according to how a teacher decides when they have the
> "sufficient context to understand how it all fit together", your quote.
> If in fact they "would not have started had they had more of the 'full
> story' early on ", again your quote, then this is the mentality I was
> exposing in the article.
But what's *wrong* with it, Curtis? You still haven't made a
case for there being anything wrong with this. Why is it offensive?
The public doesn't know about this process of
> deciding what will help a person believe what is presented, by selecting
> only those most believable things first.
That isn't how it works, Curtis. As I keep pointing out, it's
not a matter of what is believable, it's a matter of what makes
sense intellectually and experientially.
This is not a sound practice of
> teaching because as I said before the public can understand the inner TM
> teaching it just may not believe them.
No, I don't think it's a given the public can understand the "inner
teaching." Most of those who learn TM--again, as I keep pointing
out, and as you continue to avoid addressing--don't ever get into
the inner teaching anyway. They're quite satisfied simply doing
their practice 20X20 and enjoying the benefits in their lives.
I recently had the interesting experience of trying to explain
the Schroedinger's Cat paradox to an extremely intelligent,
college-educated young woman in her 20s. She thought it was
total nonsense and was, indeed, "offended" by it.
. The public deserves full
> disclosure upfront, not only if you take a residance course where all you
> normal information sources are cut off first.
Oh, Curtis, you betray your motives with this kind of statement.
You're smart enough to know it doesn't make sense; you are also
well aware "cutting off normal information sources" is an anticult
thought-stopper that will raise red flags in the minds of people
who don't know anything about TM. But it's also a red herring.
First, "full disclosure" doesn't happen on residence courses, as
you well know. Second, most residence courses last a weekend, as
you're also very much aware. People get back to their "normal
information sources" within a few days. Third, those "normal
information sources" aren't going to tell them anything that will
help them evaluate what went on on the residence course anyway.
Fourth, nothing is "cut off." You don't go on a residence course
for "normal information," whatever that may mean.
If TM doesn't want to be
> labeled as a cult then it should stop acting like one.
How does it act like a cult?
The reason that TM
> teachers feel justified in this duplicitious presention of information
On what basis do you call it "duplicitous"?
is
> because they believe that knowledge is different in different states of
> consciousness. If you feel that me saying the wise shouldn't delude the
> ignorant in some way distorts maharishi's intentions I disagree with you.
> I think you expressed the same thing in your quote.
No, I did not. Maybe if you'd quote what you were responding to
and had it under your nose when you wrote your reply, you
wouldn't get things so mixed up. Or perhaps your intention isn't
to be clear in the first place.
What I said was that "the wise shouldn't delude the ignorant"
means *don't deceive the ignorant*. I also pointed out that
wasn't what the Gita quote said; the Gita quote said "don't
*confuse* the ignorant," a very different statement. Moreover,
the Gita quote refers to something quite different from what
you've been saying it was used to justify. *If* the Gita quote
was used as you say it was used, then that usage was a distortion
of what MMY was commenting on in the Gita.
It is not TMers
> believing in enlightenment that I find offensive, it is this judgemnent
> call made on my behalf by other adults concerning what I should and
> shouldn't learn about a practice I have started.
Anyone is welcome to learn everything there is to learn about TM, Curtis.
I don't mind teaching
> according to a plan but teachers go way beyond this to give an impression
> of the movement that is not accurate.
Specifics, please.
I also resent people who present
> themselves as having "spontaineous right action" or that their memory is
> guided by "the need of the times" not by simple ignorant recollection.
Yes, that's mood-making. I resent it too. The whole notion of
"support of nature," in fact, doesn't make any sense in relative terms.
> There is no such thing as "plain vanilla" practice of TM. To pretend that
> TM is taken out of its cultural trappings just because these are not
> explained to a new meditator is dishonest
Flat statement with nothing to support it. Not surprising, since
there *is* nothing to support it.
> To try to differentiate vedic from Hindu is silly to any academic.
Oh? I guess you haven't read many informed academics on this
subject. I have plenty of non-TM sources that make precisely
this distinction. Even the *Columbia Encyclopedia* makes it, for
pete's sake! It is quite well understood that Hinduism was a
much later development, a body of religious belief that developed
out of the metaphysical philosophy of the Vedas and Upanishads.
Moreover, any knowledgeable academic will point out that to use
"Hinduism" as a term to refer to anything specific, other than to
the extraordinary profusion of different religious beliefs found
on the Indian subcontinent, is entirely inappropriate.
This
> is marketing spin at its most deceptive. I sat with maharishi in from of
> a picture of Laxmi on the Hindu celabration of Diwali. I then did the
> same thing in his college in DC. The distictions the movement makes are
> for marketing reasons and are a blatent disregard for the truth.
Maharishi is a Hindu monk. He gets to celebrate the religious
observances of his heritage. TMers are not required to participate.
I know *you* know this, Curtis. I know you know the distinction
between Hindu and Vedic. Therefore I have to assume you are the
one exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.
(continued in another post)
Judy Stein
(continued from an earlier post)
Readers who have been wondering about Curtis's sincerity may want
to have a careful look at this post in particular.
> As for ad hominim attacks, when I implied that you were lying to cover for
> TMs beliefs that the public is kept away from, I was attacking a behavior
> not you as a person.
Curtis, if you say I'm a liar without documenting or supporting
your charge, you are indeed making an ad hominem attack on me as
a person. It's disingenuous to maintain otherwise.
And your implication is flat-out wrong in any case. Bear in
mind, I've been the one asking *you* to provide specifics for
your vague insinuations, with little success. If I were trying
to "cover for TM beliefs that the public is kept away from," I
would hardly be likely to encourage you to provide specifics.
Now let's see who is really playing fast and loose with the
facts, shall we?
As an example, when you charactorized me as trying
> to be a little maharishi because I sat on a deer skin it was an attempt to
> try to make me look silly to discredit what I say.
You mean, when I quoted your words in the Washington Post to
exactly that effect?
Let's look again at that post:
Just for kicks, here's a fuller version of the story John may
have been remembering (from "Grounding the Guru," by Susan
Gervasi, City Paper (Washington, DC), 7/13/90, most likely
republished in other papers).
"At my prime of absurdity, I was sitting in full lotus [position]
for two hours on a black deerskin -- not a brown deerskin -- just
like Maharishi, with rush grass underneath, beads to protect me
from evil influences, coral to develop my intellect . . .
everything had to be perfect for me to get my deep buzz," he
said. "The techniques are powerful enough so you do get a buzz.
I was being the goodest boy, I wanted to be in an unreproachable
state. I was a little Maharishi."
Note that *you* characterized what you were doing as your "prime
of absurdity." Who was it, exactly, who has made you look silly,
Curtis, me or yourself? Are you suggesting I should have
refrained from embarrassing you by posting to the newsgroup words
attributed to you, describing yourself, in a major newspaper?
I never said that
> sitting on a deer skin would magically make me more like maharishi,
Here's what I wrote:
Nobody *required* Curtis to sit on a deerskin, it was his own
futile desire to be "a little Maharishi" that caused him to
obsessively seek out every possible means to mimic what Maharishi
did, as if that would magically make him more like Maharishi.
I submit that is an entirely reasonable interpretation of your
words as quoted in the Washington Post.
I said
> I sat on it ot improve my experiences in meditation. The advice I got
> from Nankashore was to use it but not show the public. To ridicule me for
> this behavior is really disrespectful to the maharishi himself who
> definitely believes that this practice has a concrete value.
I have no problem ridiculing MMY when I think he deserves it.
But more importantly, this is another instance of your backing
off what you've been quoted as saying in the media. *You
yourself* said the deerskin and beads business was your "prime of
absurdity." Now all of a sudden you seem to be regretting this
and trying to *defend* the practice, and you're attacking me for
having taken you seriously.
Make up your mind, Curtis.
What I was ridiculing, in any case, was not the practice itself
but your obsessive attitude--by your own account--and your desire
for total perfection.
It isn't that being one-pointed is automatically unhealthy
psychologically; it can be done without the obsessive
preoccupation, the intense, anxious focus on perfection, the
desire for a "deep buzz" (which was never the point anyway).
> Are we having fun yet!
Don't know about you, but you're presenting a broader and broader
target, Curtis, the deeper you get into this. I had thought you
were going to be more of a challenge.
> Have a great weekend,
Get stuffed.
Susan Seifert
In article <19970214004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
> Dear Judy,
> Your tone has definitely deteriorated. I will stay on content.
>
> Ad hominim attacks have a specific meaning in philosophy. It is the
> replacement of content of debate with a charactor put down. As I said in
> an earlier posts it is not name calling as such but it's specific use
> instead of argument. As far as a claim that TM teacher's lie to the
> public, and if you are a TM teacher then you must also lie to avoid
> revealing the teaching too soon, this is not an ad hominin argument. It
> is a claim about behavior. It is not an attack on you as a person in
> place of an argument, it is the substance of my argument concerning the
> way TM is presented.
>
> As far as me saying I was at the prime of absurdity by being on a deer
> skin. Nothing is more absurd in my mind than the fact that I was thinking
> I was flying by thinking words in my head. The public could relate to the
> outer aspects of my practice so that is what the writer focused on. Your
> comment claiming I tried to "obessively seek out every possible means to
> mimic what Maharishi did, as if that would magically make him more like
> Maharishi" was not, in the context of the course I was on, entirely
> reasonable. I explained it's context to you but you still use it as an
> example of how I was a defective meditator.
>
> I have read over all our communications and realize that we have a major
> communication problem. Maharishi's doctrine has many levels. Each has a
> certain consistancy to it but what you are doing is applying the public's
> presentation of the teaching to my experiences as a full time monk in his
> Florida facility. As I study your responses I realize that I don't know
> what level of his doctrine you were trained in. Are you a teacher Judy.
> Are you a sidha? Have you ever lived in a TM facility? I would like
> understand what specific training you have recieved in this teaching.
>
[snip]
I am a teacher, have attended numerous advanced courses, traveled with
Maharishi, been on his international staff, and attended the Mother Divine
course which is the ladies' equivalent of the Purusha program and...
I haven't seen any truth in your vague accusations against the TM movement.
You state TM teachers lie but haven't given a single specific instance of
it. The few specifics you have offered--for instance that Jerry Jarvis
referred to TM teachers' lying as the "SIMS Shuffle"--have been soundly
refuted.
You and Judy don't have a communication problem, you have a problem with
reality.
Michael Porter
Hello Curtis,
Enlightenment is not a matter of belief, though people may believe many
things about it. It is direct experience of the most convincing kind.
It's perfectly reasonable to "not believe in it" as an idea. One believes
or disbelieves in theories and ideas. But enlightenment is not an idea.
Your consciousness that is reading these words right now is not an idea.
I think you have posted here because you know this. I think the
possibility of experiencing this reality for yourself still intrigues
you. Perhaps you think that provoking some TM teachers to get angry and
argue with you will help you confirm that they are all self-deluded and
you were right to give up your quest. Or, perhaps you feel that something
someone might say will break a boundary in you that never got broken
before. Perhaps that old TM friend you are trying to say hello to is your
own Self.
Hello old friend. Welcome back.
--
Michael Porter
mpo...@fairfield.com
Cblues101
As far as me being a broader target, and how you thought I was going to be
more of a challenge...What do you think we are doing in these discussions
Judy? I have consistantly tried to keep our personal comments light. For
you to respond to me saying " Have a nice weekend" with "Get stuffed", I
realize that you feel the need to get personally unpleasant in a way I
can't relate too. This isn't personal for me Judy. I have given you a
chance to attack what I have said in the press to your heart's content and
have tried to explain where I am coming from. I know that whatever I say
it will not convince you of anything. But it gives people who wondered
what I ment a chance to see that I am the same friendly person I have
always been just with different beliefs about maharishi. I do not hold a
personal grudge against TMers. So I will continue to be friendly and you
can be however you are that leads you to make such statements.
Curtis Mailloux
Cblues101
Dear Barbara,
Your post was really nice. I knew Sidney, his wife and son at MIU. They
are sincere beautiful people. The experience with the MIU administration
with the institute they started is a story I will let him tell. Thank you
for bringing up such a charming well meaning person. It is really nice to
hear that he is in good health and I wish he and his family the very best.
Curtis Mailloux
Cblues101
Dear Wayne,
I didn't mean to cause you such distress. My comment was meant to bring
up the flip side of such an innocent request. I now have no doubt that
this was not your intention. You seem like a sincere guy which is why I
avoided coming on stronger than to ask you to consider the implications of
your request. As far as me saying that other meditators have their own
experiences, isn't that the meaning of personal experiences?. At your
level of involvement with the movement the things I am saying about TM and
it's teachers is not a match. I recognize that. As you get deeper into
TM you may or may not agree with me. I know you like TM and I am not here
to invalidate that experience. I am not dissapointed that you don't wear
beads, but if you ever want to perhaps I could sell you mine!
Sorry to have offended,
Curtis Mailloux
Cblues101
Dear Judy,
When I said the term "SIMS Shuffle" was a joke with Jerry I was
clarifying where I had personally heard the term. What it refers to is a
reality in the TM movement. Let me give you a little example
Judy says concerning the mantra selection:
" had to do with discouraging people from 'lending' their mantras to their
friends and trying to teach them to do TM." " It was percieved to be
easier, as a practical matter, to offer the story about how mantras had to
be selected carefully for the individual"
Lets look at TM doctrine: The mantra must be selected with great care
because at subtle levels it could have a non life suporting effect on the
individual.
Judy you have just performed the "SIMS Shuffle" like a true pro. Now
that you have demonstrated my exact point should we also add that it is
done for the benifit of the student? Would you like to go so far as to
say that the wise who know the whole should not confuse the ignorant who
know only a part?
I could never do a better job proving my point than you have done.
Since you have clarified the movement hierarchy to disprove Andrew's claim
that I was the highest ranking member to defect, you should now tell us
who was at the national or international staff of the organization who
defected and who Andrew talked to. Remember his actual quote.
You have charactorized me as obsessive rather than one pointed. Please
explain to me the difference in the context of a sidha land rounding
facility of celibate men.
Have you yourself lived in such a facility Judy? Do you really have any
idea what you are talking about or are you instead missapplying the new
meditator standard to my experiences?
My documentation about TM being no better than simple relaxation and that
it gives a deep buzz rtather than some higher state is my own experience.
15 years meditating, never once missing program, 4.5 total YEARS rounding,
10 years sidhis, all the advanced techniques.
As others in TM having a low opinion of me let me say this. Your position
here is self appointed. Is that correct? In 1979 I recieved the only SCI
specific award for my senior class, voted by my class: the SCI integration
award. It was given to the student who had the best understanding of
maharishi's teaching and could most clearly appy it to the disciplines. I
was elected as center chairman of DC by 300 teachers, more than any
outside Fairfield. I don't mind that people disagree with my unpopular
position about TM. But lets be clear about one thing. I reject this
teaching from a position of deep knowledge about it. Please enlighten me
about your history of involvement in this organization so I can better
understand which level of this doctrine you are arguing from.
I invite you to use my quotes and yours together frequently. While you
feel you are disproving what I say,I believe that nothing I could say
about TM could be more negitive than the tone you display defending it.
If you are the most visible representative speaking for TM, I never have
to give the press another quote. I'll just send them right here so they
can watch you comment on my quotes. I am really proud of what we have
done together Judy. The public has a right to full disclosure and I think
this newsgroup, and your domination over it, is more effecitive than any
quotes I could dream up. My favorite quote from you so far is "stuff it".
That was beautiful Judy, thank you.
Curtis Mailloux
Barry Markovsky
Curtis,
Welcome to amt, Curtis. We met a couple of years ago in D.C. It's really
nice to see your well-informed, temperate contributions posted here.
Barry Markovsky
Judy Stein
In article <19970215171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
> Dear Judy,
>
> When I said the term "SIMS Shuffle" was a joke with Jerry I was
> clarifying where I had personally heard the term. What it refers to is a
> reality in the TM movement.
Which Jerry denies ever having heard. Which was characterized in
Andrew's article as a "style of deception" that is "widely
practiced" in the movement. And which you have repeatedly
neglected to document.
Let me give you a little example
> Judy says concerning the mantra selection:
> " had to do with discouraging people from 'lending' their mantras to their
> friends and trying to teach them to do TM." " It was percieved to be
> easier, as a practical matter, to offer the story about how mantras had to
> be selected carefully for the individual"
>
> Lets look at TM doctrine: The mantra must be selected with great care
> because at subtle levels it could have a non life suporting effect on the
> individual.
No, that was, as I noted, what TM teachers used to tell TMers
because it was less complicated than trying to explain why TM
could be learned only one-to-one from a trained teacher.
We all know now how a TM mantra is selected for someone learning
TM. It's a straightforward task not requiring "great care"--a
short list and a very simple formula. The teachers don't mystify
the selection process any longer, nor do they give the impression
there is a large number of mantras.
The part about an improper sound possibly having a non-life
supporting effect on the individual has not changed, as far as I
know, and I have no reason to think this is not what MMY
believes. It's the reason why mantras are selected from a list
of tried-and-true sounds rather than having the individual think
up his or her own.
As I pointed out--but you have carefully failed to quote--the
original story *was* a story, but the purpose behind it was not:
if you try to roll-your-own where TM is concerned, mantra-wise or
technique-wise, you're very unlikely to be successful, and you
may well give up TM, or meditation in general, as a bad job,
missing out on the potential benefits.
A simpler and not entirely true explanation was substituted for a
much more complex explanation. It's almost impossible to explain
to people who haven't practiced TM--and even some of those who
have--why TM must be taught as it is, why it can't be learned
from a book or from anyone not trained to teach it.
I don't personally approve of any distortions of truth, but I do
make distinctions as to the relative "badness" of such
distortions, and this one seems to me to have been about as
harmless and well intentioned as it gets. I'm glad they've
stopped using the story, but I don't consider it any kind of
proof of "widely practiced deception" on TM's part.
> Judy you have just performed the "SIMS Shuffle" like a true pro.
Courtesy of your carefully selective quoting of my response.
Now
> that you have demonstrated my exact point
Your exact point was that TM teachers routinely lie as a matter
of policy. We've looked at one less-than-perfectly accurate
statement.
should we also add that it is
> done for the benifit of the student?
I believe I noted precisely that, Curtis.
Would you like to go so far as to
> say that the wise who know the whole should not confuse the ignorant who
> know only a part?
Sure, I've stated my agreement with that policy up front several
times in the course of this discussion. As you know, I think
it's an entirely reasonable policy, and I've never seen it
abused. You have *yet*--despite I don't know how many direct
requests from me so far--explained why you think there's anything
wrong with it.
The mantra story is the *only* concrete example you've yet cited
of actual *distortion* of truth--much less the out-and-out lies
you keep claiming--again despite numerous requests.
> Since you have clarified the movement hierarchy to disprove Andrew's claim
> that I was the highest ranking member to defect, you should now tell us
> who was at the national or international staff of the organization who
> defected and who Andrew talked to. Remember his actual quote.
I remember his actual quote. Not surprisingly, you've misquoted
*both* him and me to make your challenge sound better.
I never said you were not "one of the highest ranking members to
defect" (Andrew's exact words--not *the* highest ranking, as you
incorrectly state above) as of the time Andrew wrote his article.
The vagueness makes it a pretty safe statement.
What I *did* say was that his wording was designed to give the
impression that as D.C. center chairman (for only a single year,
which he didn't mention) you were a Real Big Deal in the
movement. Those who aren't aware TM centers are entirely local
operations with responsibility only for their own immediate areas
would be led to think you held a much more important position in
the movement than you in fact did.
Andrew's description was technically correct (he takes great care
to make sure his statements are technically correct) but
deliberately misleading. And you have no problem with that
(except that you apparently feel the need to distort both what he
said and what I said in order to mount a challenge to my
criticism).
> You have charactorized me as obsessive rather than one pointed. Please
> explain to me the difference in the context of a sidha land rounding
> facility of celibate men.
In that context, I would characterize it as the difference
between obsessive and disciplined. "Obsessive: excessive often
to an unreasonable degree"; "disciplined: marked by or possessing
self-control," according to my dictionary.
> Have you yourself lived in such a facility Judy?
I spent a month at a TM facility during which it housed a group
of 20 Purusha. They were highly disciplined but did not appear
to me to be obsessed. The natural leaders of the group, in fact,
those generally acknowledged to be the farthest along and the
most knowledgeable, were the most laid-back and relaxed, the
least strained, the least preoccupied with the details of being
"perfect." They took the *program* seriously but not themselves.
Perhaps that's the real difference between being one-pointed and
being obsessed.
May I quote from the same article in which you described your
deerskin-and-beads experience:
Mailloux's "specialness" earned him three years in Florida with a
group of celibate TM men, living monastically within the
movement, where he enjoyed the adulation of female movement
"groupies" drawn to his hard-to-get-ness -- a common ego-trip
among the celibates, he said.
Boy, that's one-pointed as all-get-out, isn't it? I saw nothing
even remotely resembling this among either the Purusha men or the
women TMers during my stay at the facility. Maybe folks have
just grown up since your time.
Do you really have any
> idea what you are talking about or are you instead missapplying the new
> meditator standard to my experiences?
I do indeed have an idea what I'm talking about. I've seen
obsessive, and I've seen one-pointed. The difference is very
clear. (I'm neither, by the way.)
> My documentation about TM being no better than simple relaxation and that
> it gives a deep buzz rtather than some higher state is my own experience.
> 15 years meditating, never once missing program, 4.5 total YEARS rounding,
> 10 years sidhis, all the advanced techniques.
Apparently not long enough. And there's plenty of such
"documentation" to the contrary.
My guess is your obsessiveness got in your way. If you're
looking for a "deep buzz," you can arrange for that to be your
experience, but you're also likely to miss the more subtle
developments.
> As others in TM having a low opinion of me let me say this. Your position
> here is self appointed. Is that correct?
What "position"?? That of contributor to the newsgroup? Of course.
In 1979 I recieved the only SCI
> specific award for my senior class, voted by my class: the SCI integration
> award. It was given to the student who had the best understanding of
> maharishi's teaching and could most clearly appy it to the disciplines. I
> was elected as center chairman of DC by 300 teachers, more than any
> outside Fairfield.
And this is supposed to prove what?
I don't mind that people disagree with my unpopular
> position about TM. But lets be clear about one thing. I reject this
> teaching from a position of deep knowledge about it. Please enlighten me
> about your history of involvement in this organization so I can better
> understand which level of this doctrine you are arguing from.
I never had any involvement with this organization, nor am I
arguing from doctrine. I'm arguing from my own independent
understanding and observation.
I haven't seen you yet give us any idea of why you disagree with
what Maharishi teaches, despite an initial promise from you and
several requests from me. The one aspect you did mention, the
supposed Gita quote, you got thoroughly fouled up.
> I invite you to use my quotes and yours together frequently. While you
> feel you are disproving what I say,I believe that nothing I could say
> about TM could be more negitive than the tone you display defending it.
> If you are the most visible representative speaking for TM,
I'm not a representative of anything except my own opinions,
understandings, and observations, thank you very much. I happen
to be profoundly allergic to malicious attempts at deception and
misrepresentation, no matter what the topic. I'm not defending
the movement (which, as noted, I happen to dislike intensely) so
much as I am exposing you.
I never have
> to give the press another quote. I'll just send them right here so they
> can watch you comment on my quotes.
And that will reveal the truth about both of us, Curtis, your
deceptiveness and my persistence in exposing it.
I am really proud of what we have
> done together Judy. The public has a right to full disclosure and I think
> this newsgroup, and your domination over it, is more effecitive than any
> quotes I could dream up.
I think you're quite right that our exchanges on this newsgroup
provide a lot fuller disclosure than any quotes you could "dream
up." Interesting you would use that phrase.
My favorite quote from you so far is "stuff it".
> That was beautiful Judy, thank you.
You can't even get *that* right. It was "Get stuffed"--in
response to your blatantly insincere "Have a great weekend."
But it appears I'm beginning to break through your pose of
magnanimity. Let it all hang out, Curtis. I respect honest
hostility a whole lot more than I do the kind of mealy-mouthed,
slimy hypocrisy you've demonstrated up to now.
You're still trying to be "the goodest boy," aren't you? Let it
go. You're no gooder than anybody else, and the only person
you're fooling is yourself.
Judy Stein
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970215...@red.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
Barry Markovsky <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> Curtis,
>
> Welcome to amt, Curtis. We met a couple of years ago in D.C. It's really
> nice to see your well-informed, temperate contributions posted here.
Yeah, Curtis's contributions are about as temperate and
well-informed as your recent attempt to perpetrate the "informed
consent" hoax, Barry. Not quite as sophisticated, but similarly
motivated.
Birds of a feather...
Judy Stein
In article <susan-ya07538000...@news.zippo.com>,
su...@fairfield.com (Susan Seifert) wrote:
(I haven't seen Curtis's original post; I'm responding to the
quotes in Susan's response.)
> In article <19970214004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
>
> > Dear Judy,
> > Your tone has definitely deteriorated. I will stay on content.
> >
> > Ad hominim attacks have a specific meaning in philosophy. It is the
> > replacement of content of debate with a charactor put down. As I said in
> > an earlier posts it is not name calling as such but it's specific use
> > instead of argument. As far as a claim that TM teacher's lie to the
> > public, and if you are a TM teacher then you must also lie to avoid
> > revealing the teaching too soon,
I am not a teacher. But you still have provided *no* examples of
lying on the part of TM teachers.
this is not an ad hominin argument. It
> > is a claim about behavior. It is not an attack on you as a person in
> > place of an argument, it is the substance of my argument concerning the
> > way TM is presented.
That wasn't the context in which you accused me of lying, Curtis.
You did it to discredit what I was saying, without ever
responding to the points I was making, i.e., instead of argument.
That is ad hominem as you have just defined it yourself.
You did the same with Wayne Byars when you made your thinly
veiled accusation that he was attempting to restrict your freedom
of speech.
> > As far as me saying I was at the prime of absurdity by being on a deer
> > skin. Nothing is more absurd in my mind than the fact that I was thinking
> > I was flying by thinking words in my head.
That is pretty absurd if all you were doing was hopping. It has
never occurred to me to think I was flying when I hop.
The public could relate to the
> > outer aspects of my practice so that is what the writer focused on.
No matter how misleading that may have been, eh, Curtis?
So now we see yet another backing-off attempt. It wasn't the
deerskin and beads you found absurd but the whole premise of the
TM-Sidhis.
Your
> > comment claiming I tried to "obessively seek out every possible means to
> > mimic what Maharishi did, as if that would magically make him more like
> > Maharishi" was not, in the context of the course I was on, entirely
> > reasonable.
Well, Curtis, I was going by what you were quoted as saying. I
continue to maintain this was an entirely reasonable
interpretation of that quote. If you don't find it appropriate,
maybe you should look to what you said for quotation in a major
newspaper and ask yourself whether perhaps it was misleading.
What we seem to be encountering in the course of this discussion
is levels of truth according to Curtis's doctrine. You say one
thing to the media, for general consumption, but something quite
different to a group of people who are knowledgeable about TM.
Interesting that this is your main beef against TM teachers.
I explained it's context to you but you still use it as an
> > example of how I was a defective meditator.
Curtis, I think you're a defective *person*, meditation or no
meditation. I think you have, as Susan said, a problem with
reality. You had it when you were with TM, and you still have
it; it's only the focus that has changed.
> > I have read over all our communications and realize that we have a major
> > communication problem. Maharishi's doctrine has many levels. Each has a
> > certain consistancy to it but what you are doing is applying the public's
> > presentation of the teaching to my experiences as a full time monk in his
> > Florida facility.
And why do you consider your experiences as a full-time "monk"
relevant to the vast majority of TMers? Seems to me those
experiences would be relevant only to those who are interested in
joining Mother Divine or Purusha--a very small percentage of TMers.
As I study your responses I realize that I don't know
> > what level of his doctrine you were trained in.
I find it interesting that you can't tell.
Are you a teacher Judy.
> > Are you a sidha? Have you ever lived in a TM facility? I would like
> > understand what specific training you have recieved in this teaching.
I was not "trained" in any "doctrine," Curtis. I'm a 22-year
meditator, 13-year Sidha. I've attended a modest number of
residence courses and WPAs. I don't do Jyotish or Sthapatya-Veda
or yagyas. I take Amrit Kalash, but that's about the extent of my
involvement with Maharishi Ayur-Veda. I have no association with the
movement per se and usually stay as far away from it as I can.
Two summers ago, however, I had the opportunity to stay at a
large TM facility, a hotel on the Jersey shore, for several
months on the "RK" or Residential Knowledge program, which as it
happens involved almost nothing in the way of formal exposure to
MMY's teaching. The program involved a discount hotel room (with
full ocean view, a block from the beach) and board, plus
participation in group program, while I did my own work (I'm a
free-lance editor). I fancied spending the summer at the shore,
and I thought it would be an interesting experience to be in a
movement atmosphere for an extended period while leading an
entirely independent life.
As a Rik (as they called us), I was a full member of the TM
community, mixing with the facility's staff and the frequent
groups of residence and WPA course participants, attending
celebrations and conference calls and the rare lecture and so on
as I wished, but I retained complete autonomy.
MMY's teaching was a frequent topic of conversation at meals and
other occasions of socializing; there were some very long-time
teachers on staff who did lots of reminiscing about the
movement's early days, with many intimate tales of MMY and other
movement luminaries. These teachers also participated in intense
ad hoc discussions of the TM teaching. For the first month I was
there, a group of about 20 Purusha were in residence, and they
mixed freely with everybody else and took part in the various
conversations. It was very much an unguarded, "let it all hang
out" sort of atmosphere, including the voicing of doubts. More
than anything else, I was impressed by the individualism and
autonomy of the residents, which manifested itself, among other
ways, in a wonderful sense of humor about themselves and the
movement and TM generally.
Anyway, I picked up a great deal of information on many different
levels, including the "inner" levels, to add to the extensive
study and reflection I've done on my own since I began TM, plus
what I've heard on courses and from personal friends who are
teachers over the years. (But I've never, as noted, been
"trained." I listen to what's taught and do my own evaluation.)
It was indeed a fascinating and very worthwhile experience.
Ultimately I was glad to leave (my stay was extended more or less
against my will when my NYC apartment suffered severe water
damage while I was away!), but it was a terrific opportunity to
observe the movement up close and personal.
I saw some moodmaking; I saw examples of much of what I dislike
about the movement. But mostly I saw a group of lively, vibrant,
intelligent individuals working cooperatively and creatively for
a shared goal. I didn't see *anything* to confirm the kinds of
insinuations you've been making.
(I might add parenthetically that the hotel, besides housing
various TM administrative offices and hosting introductory TM
courses, residence courses, WPAs, and Sidhis courses--including
the flying block--was also being run as a commercial operation.
Among the guests were frequent large weekend groups of Orthodox
Jews, in some cases ultra-Orthodox Jews, who gathered for Bar
Mitzvahs and other religious occasions (often on the same
weekends as TM courses). Such gatherings for the Orthodox are
very closely supervised by rabbis to make sure proper observance
of Jewish Law can take place. This required the rabbis to do
considerable investigation of TM to make sure there was no
religious conflict; Orthodox Jews are required by Halacha not
even to give the *appearance* of having any association with
another religion. It's the duty of these rabbis to be intensely
suspicious, to the point of literally snooping around, so as not
to take the slightest risk of conflict with Halacha. Obviously,
they decided there was no problem.)
Mike Doughney
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <Ylu0pq2B...@ziplink.net>,
Judy Stein <jst...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>In article <19970208183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>cblu...@aol.com (Cblues101) wrote:
>
>
>> The spirit of what I ment was intact however. MY point was that
>> in TM I was on a path for human perfection. This perfectionistic standard
>> was symbolized by the maharishi. I was not deluded into thinking that by
>> looking like maharishi I was being like him. I was just trying to do all
>> the practices I could to further my evolution and in the monastic context
>> I was living in the behaviors mentioned in the article were common.
>> Everyone didn't have a deer skin but most wore beads. My point was that I
>> was at that time following maharishi's strictest program and according to
>> him this was our fastest path of growth. It is not fair to point to me
>> like I was some moodmaker on my own with these behaviors.
>
>Curtis, I can always repost the quote. You were portraying
>*yourself* as a moodmaker.
Perhaps Curtis just went completely over your head, Judy.
Everyone, without exception, who becomes a "true believer" of the TM
doctrines and practice IS a "moodmaker." It's all just a matter of
degree. There is no fundamental difference between what Curtis was
doing and what you are doing here everyday - participating in and
supporting the delusion that TM is a unique technique that may only be
dispensed by this so-called 'holy tradition' and that it will improve
the world is nothing other than the creation of a "mood" that such
behavior is actually beneficial to oneself and others.
There is no supporting evidence of any such benefit other than
phenomena that would be consistent with such mood-enhancing activities
that are really no different than the things that occur during
religious conversion or initiation.
And of course, to maintain the mood - her delusion that every critic
of TM absolutely must be lying about the true nature of the
technique and the movement - Judy must post many many
kilobytes of meaningless trash to answer Curtis' cool recounting of
his TM movement experiences. By so doing she's doing a wonderful job
of making it clear to the outside world that such delusional behavior
is central to the TM believer's life.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBMwf5K39g9f+5TwWtAQFuVwMAt14uoVr1NOZnwAmTusY8izSlCmoU9ZPP
OZYZJjJuoZ9K81BwALfK63zlovPCCDF1E6PCvnGNQYeWpjlTpJ2wtCQ1oVuD+ps+
DabapwojloY7Ffr3E6+Dkr8Y4P0Dg242
=fCJL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Mike Doughney ---------- mi...@mtd.com ---------- http://mtd.com
------------- Copyright (c) 1997 All Rights Reserved. -------------
---------------- "ain't that cute. But it's WRONG!" ----------------
Donald Krieger
Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
<snip>
> (I might add parenthetically that the hotel, besides housing
> various TM administrative offices and hosting introductory TM
> courses, residence courses, WPAs, and Sidhis courses--including
> the flying block--was also being run as a commercial operation.
> Among the guests were frequent large weekend groups of Orthodox
> Jews, in some cases ultra-Orthodox Jews, who gathered for Bar
> Mitzvahs and other religious occasions (often on the same
> weekends as TM courses). Such gatherings for the Orthodox are
> very closely supervised by rabbis to make sure proper observance
> of Jewish Law can take place. This required the rabbis to do
> considerable investigation of TM to make sure there was no
> religious conflict; Orthodox Jews are required by Halacha not
> even to give the *appearance* of having any association with
> another religion. It's the duty of these rabbis to be intensely
> suspicious, to the point of literally snooping around, so as not
> to take the slightest risk of conflict with Halacha. Obviously,
> they decided there was no problem.)
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> + Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@ziplink.net +
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Jew-lovin" Judy strikes again!!
The Vista Hotel in Pgh. has a Kosher certificate. Orthodox Jews
attend Bar Mitzvas in one room and it is possible that a Christian
revival meeting could be going on in the next room. Orthodox Jews
also fly on Royal Jordanian Airline and can order a Kosher meal.
"Jew-lovin" Judy has misapplied the appearance factor.
Orthodox Jews *know* Halacha, so the only "risk" is the food which
is covered by the certificate or caterer. Perhaps some of you are
as amused as "Jew-lovin" Judy about a rabbi "snooping around". I'm
not. Its offensive to suggest that a rabbi would closely supervise
an occasion as "Jew lovin" Judy said in her post.
Rabbis made *NO* investigation of TM because there was no reason
to do so. I assure you that they don"t investigate the ownership
of the Vista Hotel and it is patently absurd to imply that they
would investigate other groups who use the hotel. The exception
would be if there were Jewish owners.
This is not the first time that "Jew lovin" Judy has made an
ignorant and unflattering post about Jews, using the Berkely-
Carteret Hotel as the backdrop. She ties it all together, somehow,
so that it *appears* that rabbis have investigate TM and don't have
a problem. One more time - rabbis may have given the facility a
Kosher certificate, meaning kitchen and food. In addition, they
may even have a room that is designated for prayer. This is true
in many hotels. This does not mean that a rabbi has investigated
or "snooped" into the religious beliefs or practices of the owners
or the other guests. This is not what rabbis do and it is not what
"appearance factor" is about.
"Jew lovin" Judy attempted to create "appearance factor" when she
built her case and concluded that the rabbi so no problem with TM.
She attempted to created a Jew/TM appearance. In fact, she *did*
create that appearance.
Now I know that there aren't many out there who are willing to
take on our neighborhood bully, so try this. If you doubt me,
check out soc.culture.jewish or any one of the many, many sites
on the net. No one will ever know! Its not likely that I'll
go on and on and on and on with the pedantic poster.
As "Jew lovin" Judy knows, I don't consider this newsgroup to be
a real productive vehicle and I'm more comfortable when I actually
get off my butt and *do* something. I've done a lot within my
own Jewish community and elsewhere.
Now that "Jew lovin" Judy has created this appearance factor, I'll
take the liberty of sharing her post with the appropriate people
in Asbury Park. The thing with those Kosher certificates is that
they are given and they can be taken away. As long as the Orthodox
guests are confident that the kitchen and the food meet Kosher
requirements, there is not normally a problem. "Jew lovin" Judy
had the need to draw some kind of connection between a Kosher
kitchen and an endorsement of TM using unflattering and untrue
information about things she knows *nothing* about.
Don"t worry, "Jew lovin" Judy. Even if their Kosher certificate
is pulled and the hotel looses that revenue, you"ll always be the
queen of amt/
Marcy
Judy Stein
In article <5e8tfp$e...@ss4.digex.net>,
mi...@ss4.digex.net (Mike Doughney) wrote:
> In article <Ylu0pq2B...@ziplink.net>,
> Judy Stein <jst...@ziplink.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >Curtis, I can always repost the quote. You were portraying
> >*yourself* as a moodmaker.
>
> Perhaps Curtis just went completely over your head, Judy.
No, I don't think so, Mike. I gather you didn't read the quote
either of the two times I posted it.
> Everyone, without exception, who becomes a "true believer" of the TM
> doctrines and practice IS a "moodmaker." It's all just a matter of
> degree. There is no fundamental difference between what Curtis was
> doing and what you are doing here everyday - participating in and
> supporting the delusion that TM is a unique technique that may only be
> dispensed by this so-called 'holy tradition' and that it will improve
> the world is nothing other than the creation of a "mood" that such
> behavior is actually beneficial to oneself and others.
Well, that might be the case if you were correct in calling it a
"delusion" (although "moodmaking" in the TM context refers to
persuading oneself one is in a higher state of consciousness, so
it doesn't apply to simply promoting TM in any case).
However, that would be an empty claim; there's no evidence any of
it is a "delusion" and considerable evidence it is not.
Moreover, even if what you say were true, it would have nothing
to do with whether Curtis portrayed himself as a moodmaker in the
newspaper article, which is precisely what he did. That was the
point under discussion. Nor, of course, am I a "true believer."
> There is no supporting evidence of any such benefit other than
> phenomena that would be consistent with such mood-enhancing activities
> that are really no different than the things that occur during
> religious conversion or initiation.
Oh, my goodness no, that's not the case at all, Mike. There's a
great deal of supporting evidence, much of it published in
independent peer-reviewed journals, showing the effects are not
dependent on "religious conversion" (which doesn't occur in TM in
any case) or even initiation.
> And of course, to maintain the mood - her delusion that every critic
> of TM absolutely must be lying about the true nature of the
> technique and the movement
Mike has long entertained the delusion that I hold the delusion
he describes, having somehow managed to block out of his
consciousness completely the fact that I frequently criticize the
movement, have agreed with many of the points critics have made,
and accuse some critics of nothing more than ignorance concerning
TM.
- Judy must post many many
> kilobytes of meaningless trash to answer Curtis' cool recounting of
> his TM movement experiences. By so doing she's doing a wonderful job
> of making it clear to the outside world that such delusional behavior
> is central to the TM believer's life.
Again, bear in mind, Mike, that the validity of your statement
depends (a) on whether Curtis is telling the truth and (b)
on whether TMers are deluded about TM. Since you have presented
no evidence whatsoever to support your many claims, as long as
I've been on the newsgroup, I think we're safe to assume you're
talking through your hat (or your own delusions).
Judith Stein
In article <5e98f7$8...@majesty.lightlink.com>,
d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald Krieger) wrote:
> Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
> <snip>
> (I might add parenthetically that the hotel, besides housing
> > various TM administrative offices and hosting introductory TM
> > courses, residence courses, WPAs, and Sidhis courses--including
> > the flying block--was also being run as a commercial operation.
> > Among the guests were frequent large weekend groups of Orthodox
> > Jews, in some cases ultra-Orthodox Jews, who gathered for Bar
> > Mitzvahs and other religious occasions (often on the same
> > weekends as TM courses). Such gatherings for the Orthodox are
> > very closely supervised by rabbis to make sure proper observance
> > of Jewish Law can take place. This required the rabbis to do
> > considerable investigation of TM to make sure there was no
> > religious conflict; Orthodox Jews are required by Halacha not
> > even to give the *appearance* of having any association with
> > another religion. It's the duty of these rabbis to be intensely
> > suspicious, to the point of literally snooping around, so as not
> > to take the slightest risk of conflict with Halacha. Obviously,
> > they decided there was no problem.)
>
> "Jew-lovin" Judy strikes again!!
> The Vista Hotel in Pgh. has a Kosher certificate. Orthodox Jews
> attend Bar Mitzvas in one room and it is possible that a Christian
> revival meeting could be going on in the next room.
Sure, same thing happened at the Asbury Park hotel. That wasn't
a problem for the Jewish groups.
Orthodox Jews
> also fly on Royal Jordanian Airline and can order a Kosher meal.
Big difference between traveling on a Jordanian plane and holding
a residential weekend-long religious celebration in a hotel owned
and run by what one thinks may be a Hindu religious cult.
> "Jew-lovin" Judy has misapplied the appearance factor.
> Orthodox Jews *know* Halacha, so the only "risk" is the food which
> is covered by the certificate or caterer.
Not correct, in two respects. First, the appearance factor has
to do, in this case, with who owns and runs the hotel and for
what purpose.
Second, besides the appearance factor, there are many more
details than just the Kosher certificate that are of concern to
observant Jews, including, for instance, how the elevators are
programmed to run on the Sabbath (at least one must be set to
stop on every floor so no buttons need to be pushed).
Perhaps some of you are
> as amused as "Jew-lovin" Judy about a rabbi "snooping around".
It would be interesting to watch Don try to explain where he sees
a tone of amusement in my post.
I'm
> not. Its offensive to suggest that a rabbi would closely supervise
> an occasion as "Jew lovin" Judy said in her post.
It's not at all clear why this would be in any way offensive to
someone who respects observance.
> Rabbis made *NO* investigation of TM because there was no reason
> to do so.
That is incorrect. I know *for a fact* the rabbis investigated
TM in connection with the Asbury Park hotel ownership. They
*were* concerned that the movement owns and runs the hotel, but
their concerns were satisfied.
I assure you that they don"t investigate the ownership
> of the Vista Hotel and it is patently absurd to imply that they
> would investigate other groups who use the hotel.
Since I never implied nor even remotely suggested the rabbis had
investigated any other groups who use the hotel--as far as I
know, they did not, nor would there have been any reason to do
so--it would seem Don's imagination is running out of control
again.
> This is not the first time that "Jew lovin" Judy has made an
> ignorant and unflattering post about Jews, using the Berkely-
> Carteret Hotel as the backdrop.
If Don wishes to portray my comments about Jews as ignorant and
unflattering, it says a great deal about his own attitude toward
and knowledge of Judaism. It appears he doesn't find concern
with the details of observance an admirable trait, as I do. That
is the case with many Jews who are not themselves observant.
> Now that "Jew lovin" Judy has created this appearance factor, I'll
> take the liberty of sharing her post with the appropriate people
> in Asbury Park.
Do share with them your response as well, Don, complete with the
epithet "Jew lovin". I'm sure the appropriate people will be
most interested. The only folks I've ever heard use that phrase
have been rabid anti-Semites.
> The thing with those Kosher certificates is that they are given
> and they can be taken away.
They sure can be, depending on whether the food service is Kosher
or not.
Not on the basis of a communication from some obviously disturbed
individual whose only use for Judaism is as a tool of personal
revenge for a fantasized wrong.
Don--GET HELP.
Susan Seifert
In article <5e98f7$8...@majesty.lightlink.com>,
d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald Krieger) wrote:
> Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > (I might add parenthetically that the hotel, besides housing
> > various TM administrative offices and hosting introductory TM
> > courses, residence courses, WPAs, and Sidhis courses--including
> > the flying block--was also being run as a commercial operation.
> > Among the guests were frequent large weekend groups of Orthodox
> > Jews, in some cases ultra-Orthodox Jews, who gathered for Bar
> > Mitzvahs and other religious occasions (often on the same
> > weekends as TM courses). Such gatherings for the Orthodox are
> > very closely supervised by rabbis to make sure proper observance
> > of Jewish Law can take place. This required the rabbis to do
> > considerable investigation of TM to make sure there was no
> > religious conflict; Orthodox Jews are required by Halacha not
> > even to give the *appearance* of having any association with
> > another religion. It's the duty of these rabbis to be intensely
> > suspicious, to the point of literally snooping around, so as not
> > to take the slightest risk of conflict with Halacha. Obviously,
> > they decided there was no problem.)
>
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > + Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@ziplink.net +
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> "Jew-lovin" Judy strikes again!!
[Much snipped]
I'm Jewish and found nothing whatever offensive in Judy's post. However, I
found your condemnation of her unfair and unjustly accusatory. I have no
idea whether or not she's accurate in her statement but I can't find
anything remotely offensive to Jews in it.
--
*********************************************************************
Susan Seifert
su...@fairfield.com
*********************************************************************
Donald Krieger
That was my point. There isn't a problem, in either case, with the
appearance factor.
> Orthodox Jews
> > also fly on Royal Jordanian Airline and can order a Kosher meal.
> Big difference between traveling on a Jordanian plane and holding
> a residential weekend-long religious celebration in a hotel owned
> and run by what one thinks may be a Hindu religious cult.
Niether one suggests an association between Jews and other religions.
That is the point.
> > "Jew-lovin" Judy has misapplied the appearance factor.
> > Orthodox Jews *know* Halacha, so the only "risk" is the food which
> > is covered by the certificate or caterer.
> Not correct, in two respects. First, the appearance factor has
> to do, in this case, with who owns and runs the hotel and for
> what purpose.
There is a difference between the Jewish group believing that
the hotel is run and operated by folks who practice another
religion (which is OK) and believing that the other folks see
their patronage as some kind of endorsement or association with
the other religion. This is a crucial difference.
> Second, besides the appearance factor, there are many more
> details than just the Kosher certificate that are of concern to
> observant Jews, including, for instance, how the elevators are
> programmed to run on the Sabbath (at least one must be set to
> stop on every floor so no buttons need to be pushed).
Of course. As I stated, Orthodox Jews *know* their requirements.
I'm not sure what your point is, here.
> Perhaps some of you are
> > as amused as "Jew-lovin" Judy about a rabbi "snooping around".
> It would be interesting to watch Don try to explain where he sees
> a tone of amusement in my post.
Well, Don didn't write the post - I did (Marcy) and I signed it.
No, it wasn't "amusement" that I saw. It was unflattering and
offensive - not to mention "inaccurate*.
> I'm
> > not. Its offensive to suggest that a rabbi would closely supervise
> > an occasion as "Jew lovin" Judy said in her post.
> It's not at all clear why this would be in any way offensive to
> someone who respects observance.
Someone who respects and UNDERSTANDS observance doesn't need a
circulating rabbi to supervise an event. Once a Kosher certificate
is issued and other requirements are satisfied (like the elevator)
there is no need for a rabbi to supervise anything. Orthodox Jews
don't require a rabbi for services, for instance. Your whole
portrayal of the rabbi as a nosey watchdog is offensive.
> > Rabbis made *NO* investigation of TM because there was no reason
> > to do so.
> That is incorrect. I know *for a fact* the rabbis investigated
> TM in connection with the Asbury Park hotel ownership. They
> *were* concerned that the movement owns and runs the hotel, but
> their concerns were satisfied.
Again, if the hotel ownership was a Catholic group it would be
the same thing. It is one thing to be aware of the religious
ownership . It is something else to say that their concerns were
satisfied in the sense that the religion was *investigated*
and found to be compatible with Judaism. Do you see the difference?
> I assure you that they don"t investigate the ownership
> > of the Vista Hotel and it is patently absurd to imply that they
> > would investigate other groups who use the hotel.
> Since I never implied nor even remotely suggested the rabbis had
> investigated any other groups who use the hotel--as far as I
> know, they did not, nor would there have been any reason to do
> so--it would seem Don's imagination is running out of control
> again.
I never implied or suggest that you did! My point is that *your*
imagination is out of control in terms of what you think rabbis
*investigate* and what *investigation* entails.
Again, Don did not write the post.
> > This is not the first time that "Jew lovin" Judy has made an
> > ignorant and unflattering post about Jews, using the Berkely-
> > Carteret Hotel as the backdrop.
> If Don wishes to portray my comments about Jews as ignorant and
> unflattering, it says a great deal about his own attitude toward
> and knowledge of Judaism. It appears he doesn't find concern
> with the details of observance an admirable trait, as I do. That
> is the case with many Jews who are not themselves observant.
Your comments about Jews *are* ignorant and unflattering. I am
not interested in what you, an ignorant anti-Semite, would pretend
to know or understand about the details of Jewish observance. Your
sophmoric and idiotic posts about the "Glatt Kosher kitchen" and
Kaballah stand out, in my mind. When you can claim being raised
in an observant home, having observant grandparents on both sides,
45 years of continuing Jewish education and raising a child in that
tradition, I'll be glad to discuss your *admiration* and your
judgements about non-observant Jews.
> > Now that "Jew lovin" Judy has created this appearance factor, I'll
> > take the liberty of sharing her post with the appropriate people
> > in Asbury Park.
> Do share with them your response as well, Don, complete with the
> epithet "Jew lovin". I'm sure the appropriate people will be
> most interested. The only folks I've ever heard use that phrase
> have been rabid anti-Semites.
No problem. Its used in many contexts.
> > The thing with those Kosher certificates is that they are given
> > and they can be taken away.
> They sure can be, depending on whether the food service is Kosher
> or not.
Well, as you pointed out, there are other factors. In this case, the
problem is your insistence on a TM/Jewish connection endorsed by rabbis
at the Berkeley Carteret Hotel. You created an "appearance factor"
and that is a problem.
> Not on the basis of a communication from some obviously disturbed
> individual whose only use for Judaism is as a tool of personal
> revenge for a fantasized wrong.
You reveal, once again, your profound ignorance. First of all, once
I *understood* the TM/Jewish connection that you were promoting with
regard to the hotel, I had an OBLIGATION to bring it to the attention
of the appropriate people.
Second, I am a highly respected and well known member of my local
Jewish community - as my family has been for generations. Your very
stupid comments about my "only use for Judaism" doesn't even make
sense! You don't know anything about this particular religious
obligation, obviously.
This is not the first time that I've spoken to rabbis with regard
to TM. For the record, let me assure you that I'm not viewed as
"disturbed" nor is my level of observance or motivation brought
into question. Like I said, I'm known and respected within this
community. Its not likely that my concerns would be viewed as a
communication from an obviously disturbed person, like you said.
You can be sure that anyone I contact, in an official capacity,
will contact my local rabbi. That's just how it works.
> Don--GET HELP.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> + Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@ziplink.net +
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don didn't write this post.
Marcy
Donald Krieger
Susan Seifert (su...@fairfield.com) wrote:
> In article <5e98f7$8...@majesty.lightlink.com>,
> d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald Krieger) wrote:
> > Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > (I might add parenthetically that the hotel, besides housing
> > > various TM administrative offices and hosting introductory TM
> > > courses, residence courses, WPAs, and Sidhis courses--including
> > > the flying block--was also being run as a commercial operation.
> > > Among the guests were frequent large weekend groups of Orthodox
> > > Jews, in some cases ultra-Orthodox Jews, who gathered for Bar
> > > Mitzvahs and other religious occasions (often on the same
> > > weekends as TM courses). Such gatherings for the Orthodox are
> > > very closely supervised by rabbis to make sure proper observance
> > > of Jewish Law can take place. This required the rabbis to do
> > > considerable investigation of TM to make sure there was no
> > > religious conflict; Orthodox Jews are required by Halacha not
> > > even to give the *appearance* of having any association with
> > > another religion. It's the duty of these rabbis to be intensely
> > > suspicious, to the point of literally snooping around, so as not
> > > to take the slightest risk of conflict with Halacha. Obviously,
> > > they decided there was no problem.)
> >
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > + Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@ziplink.net +
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
> > "Jew-lovin" Judy strikes again!!
> [Much snipped]
> I'm Jewish and found nothing whatever offensive in Judy's post. However, I
> found your condemnation of her unfair and unjustly accusatory. I have no
> idea whether or not she's accurate in her statement but I can't find
> anything remotely offensive to Jews in it.
> --
> *********************************************************************
> Susan Seifert
> su...@fairfield.com
> *********************************************************************
--
I'm not surprised.
Marcy
Cblues101
Hi Barry,
Nice to hear from you. It has been a wierd ride on this newgroup and I
think I have reached my limit! Anyway I would be happy to catch up on E
mail if you want.
Curtis
dkrieger.
Judith Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
: That is incorrect. I know *for a fact* the rabbis investigated
: TM in connection with the Asbury Park hotel ownership.
Your explanations are neither authoritative nor credible, but I
am open to gaining a deeper understanding. Please provide the names, etc.
of these Rabbis. I would like to talk with them.
Don
--
Don Krieger dkri...@dns.city-net.com http://www.city-net.com/~dkrieger/
For flameless discussion of Transcendental Meditation join the trancenet
listserv at majo...@lightlink.com with message: subscribe trancenet
Take an independent look at TM at http://www.trancenet.org/
Stokes Dickins
jst...@ziplink.net (Judy Stein) wrote:
>
>I spent a month at a TM facility during which it housed a group
>of 20 Purusha. They were highly disciplined but did not appear
>to me to be obsessed. The natural leaders of the group, in fact,
>those generally acknowledged to be the farthest along and the
>most knowledgeable, were the most laid-back and relaxed, the
>least strained, the least preoccupied with the details of being
>"perfect." They took the *program* seriously but not themselves.
>Perhaps that's the real difference between being one-pointed and
>being obsessed.
Thanks for this pleasant Purusha picture. I have always been
impressed by the relaxed, focused, friendly demeanor of Purusha
guys that I have happened to be around.
One friend joined Purusha and after 2 months suddenly became inspired
to do pursue a music project. He left to "follow his dream". Well,
that project didn't go as planned, but during December , he and the
ensemble that he conducts were on Garrison Keiller's Prairie Home
Companion show. The group was sensational. Jim sounded calm and
completely comfortable, talking to Garrison like they were old
friends. The Christmas CD produced by the group was in the Wireless
catalog.
Another Purusha person that I knew of found that he was medically
intuitive. As more and more people requested his council, he finally,
like Caroline Myss, decided not to do personal readings. When I heard
of it, I was not surprised that a Purusha person had developed that
ability. OTOH, I wasn't surprised either than he was the only one who
had.
Needless to say, I'm impressed with Purusha guys who are working with
the group and I'm impressed with guys who spent a while on Purusha and
then left to develop other interests. It looks like an effective
program to me.
Barbara
Cblues101
Stokes Dickins
On 18 Feb 1997 23:19:28 -0500, jst...@ziplink.net (Judith Stein)
wrote:
>Do share with them your response as well, Don, complete with the
>epithet "Jew lovin". I'm sure the appropriate people will be
>most interested. The only folks I've ever heard use that phrase
>have been rabid anti-Semites.
>
"Jew lovin" jogged my memory of a similar phrase that was popular in
the south, "n***** lovin". It was a derisive term applied by racists
to people who were of the opinion that all people deserved the same
opportunity to be educated and employed. They applied the term to
people who thought that all people deserved a place to eat and go to
the bathroom when traveling. They applied the term to people who
were brave enough to let their opinions be known.
Yesterday, I read a book, I am a Star by Inge Auerbacher. At age 7,
in 1942 she was torn from her comfortable home and taken with her
family to Terezin. She was there until the end of the war. Three
members of her family survived.
Then I went to see the movie, Shine, and I saw that the damage caused
by that inhuman incarceration reached out to alter the natural course
of love and happiness in subsequent generations. The grip of fear
and terror was tenacious.
I drove back from Iowa City to Fairfield with a heightened
appreciation for people who practice TM for their own well being and
for, they hope, the well being of others. I don't think TM is the
only way that stress can be dissolved. I do think it's a really good
way.
Judy, I like that you think telling the facts about TM is a great
recreation.
Barbara
Donald Krieger
Stokes Dickins (sdic...@fairfield.com) wrote:
> On 18 Feb 1997 23:19:28 -0500, jst...@ziplink.net (Judith Stein)
> wrote:
> >Do share with them your response as well, Don, complete with the
> >epithet "Jew lovin". I'm sure the appropriate people will be
> >most interested. The only folks I've ever heard use that phrase
> >have been rabid anti-Semites.
> >
> "Jew lovin" jogged my memory of a similar phrase that was popular in
> the south, "n***** lovin". It was a derisive term applied by racists
> to people who were of the opinion that all people deserved the same
> opportunity to be educated and employed. They applied the term to
> people who thought that all people deserved a place to eat and go to
> the bathroom when traveling. They applied the term to people who
> were brave enough to let their opinions be known.
<snip>
Huh?? Its hard for me to believe that you're sincere about this,
Barbara. Only on amt is it possible (and predictable) that a
Jewish woman posts about being hurt by the claims of TM's non-
religious nature and tries to counter a lot of bogus and insulting
remarks by Judy Stein and ends up being equated with a racist and
being called an anti-Semite on another thread. Priceless, really
priceless!
I think "n----- lovin" is an ugly terms imposed upon the good
people you desribed by some racist rednecks. I think they meant
that those people actually did love black people and supported
their cause. Do you really think that when I said "Jew lovin"
Judy that I meant that Judy actually loves the Jews and is in
support of their causes? Do you really think that I meant the
word "Jew" as derogatory like the "n" word?
Clue: What's the difference between "Honest Abe" and "Honest"
John??
> Yesterday, I read a book, I am a Star by Inge Auerbacher. At age 7,
> in 1942 she was torn from her comfortable home and taken with her
> family to Terezin. She was there until the end of the war. Three
> members of her family survived.
> Then I went to see the movie, Shine, and I saw that the damage caused
> by that inhuman incarceration reached out to alter the natural course
> of love and happiness in subsequent generations. The grip of fear
> and terror was tenacious.
What is your point, Barbara?
> I drove back from Iowa City to Fairfield with a heightened
> appreciation for people who practice TM for their own well being and
> for, they hope, the well being of others. I don't think TM is the
> only way that stress can be dissolved. I do think it's a really good
> way.
> Judy, I like that you think telling the facts about TM is a great
> recreation.
> Barbara
It could be GREAT recreation and even productive without the
tactics that have been discussed on this newsgroup many times
before. Most of these "facts" are opinions and personal
experiences, which is ok, too.
My "facts" and experiences regarding TM are limited. This is
not the case with my Judaism and I have no intention of sitting
back and allowing Judy or ANYONE to make incorrect, insulting
and "sloppy" statements so that some erroneous connection between
TM and Judaism can be made. The fact that this activity is
considered someone's "recreation" is abhorent to me and I view
it as anti-Semetic as the Southern Baptists that have a "policy"
of trying to convert Jews.
I accept that you are unwilling or unable to understand that
rabbis have reviewed pertinent aspects of TM and determined that
it is not compatible with Judaism. Whether or not you ACCEPT
it, that's just the way it is. I also accept that some Jews
are satisfied to practice TM. This is the way it is - however
I feel about it. I am quite happy and satisfied with the role
that Judaism plays in my life along with the satisfaction I
derive from community service. I am well known and respected
within my religious community.
I am sorry that people on amt can't agree to disagree on what
are largely "matters of opinion" and treat eachother with
respect.
I WILL NOT be bullied by some rude, ignorant and anti-Semetic
person who spends most time name calling and massaging her own
ego than actually saying something positive about TM.
Barbara, you really brought a nice tone to this newsgroup -
along with some very strong pro-TM posts that have been sincere
and effective. I understand that you appreciate Judy's pro-TM
sentiments. Still, its strange that you don't have some kind
of "bad" feeling about her tactics.
Marcy
>
--
Don Krieger Neurosurgery Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
d...@neuronet.pitt.edu http://www.neuronet.pitt.edu/~don/
Judy Stein
In article <5effk7$n...@dns.city-net.com>,
dkri...@city-net.com (dkrieger.) wrote:
> Judith Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
>
> : That is incorrect. I know *for a fact* the rabbis investigated
> : TM in connection with the Asbury Park hotel ownership.
>
> Your explanations are neither authoritative nor credible,
Actually they're both, but you're free to entertain whatever dark
fantasies you wish. We're used to that from you.
but I
> am open to gaining a deeper understanding. Please provide the names, etc.
> of these Rabbis. I would like to talk with them.
Sorry, Don, I'm not at all sure why you'd think I'd have their
names etc. I don't, of course.
Don, you and Marcy know *I* know the two of you are
grandstanding. None of this has anything to do with any deep
commitment to Judaism on your part. It has to do with your deep
commitment to do TM whatever injury you can, by any means
available, including exploiting Judaism and Jews to that end.
The Asbury Park situation was no big deal. The Jewish groups had
apparently heard false tales of TM being a Hindu religious cult
and needed to assure themselves it wasn't before they'd be
comfortable holding their religious observances in a hotel owned
and operated by TM. They checked into it, found out TM wasn't a
Hindu religious cult, and that was the end of it. This was two
summers ago. What if anything has transpired since, I have no
idea.
Judy Stein
In article <5eelac$p...@majesty.lightlink.com>,
d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald Krieger) wrote:
> Judith Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
> > In article <5e98f7$8...@majesty.lightlink.com>,
> > d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald Krieger) wrote:
>
> > > Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > (I might add parenthetically that the hotel, besides housing
> > > > various TM administrative offices and hosting introductory TM
> > > > courses, residence courses, WPAs, and Sidhis courses--including
> > > > the flying block--was also being run as a commercial operation.
> > > > Among the guests were frequent large weekend groups of Orthodox
> > > > Jews, in some cases ultra-Orthodox Jews, who gathered for Bar
> > > > Mitzvahs and other religious occasions (often on the same
> > > > weekends as TM courses). Such gatherings for the Orthodox are
> > > > very closely supervised by rabbis to make sure proper observance
> > > > of Jewish Law can take place. This required the rabbis to do
> > > > considerable investigation of TM to make sure there was no
> > > > religious conflict; Orthodox Jews are required by Halacha not
> > > > even to give the *appearance* of having any association with
> > > > another religion. It's the duty of these rabbis to be intensely
> > > > suspicious, to the point of literally snooping around, so as not
> > > > to take the slightest risk of conflict with Halacha. Obviously,
> > > > they decided there was no problem.)
> > >
> > > "Jew-lovin" Judy strikes again!!
> > > The Vista Hotel in Pgh. has a Kosher certificate. Orthodox Jews
> > > attend Bar Mitzvas in one room and it is possible that a Christian
> > > revival meeting could be going on in the next room.
>
> > Sure, same thing happened at the Asbury Park hotel. That wasn't
> > a problem for the Jewish groups.
>
> That was my point. There isn't a problem, in either case, with the
> appearance factor.
And my point was that there wasn't a problem with other religious
groups using the hotel, but there *was* a problem, potentially at
least, with holding religious celebrations in a hotel owned and
operated by what the rabbis thought might be a Hindu religious
cult.
> > Orthodox Jews
> > > also fly on Royal Jordanian Airline and can order a Kosher meal.
>
> > Big difference between traveling on a Jordanian plane and holding
> > a residential weekend-long religious celebration in a hotel owned
> > and run by what one thinks may be a Hindu religious cult.
>
> Niether one suggests an association between Jews and other religions.
> That is the point.
No, in fact the latter very well could, if the hotel was in fact
owned and operated by a religious cult. That was the concern.
> > > "Jew-lovin" Judy has misapplied the appearance factor.
> > > Orthodox Jews *know* Halacha, so the only "risk" is the food which
> > > is covered by the certificate or caterer.
>
> > Not correct, in two respects. First, the appearance factor has
> > to do, in this case, with who owns and runs the hotel and for
> > what purpose.
>
> There is a difference between the Jewish group believing that
> the hotel is run and operated by folks who practice another
> religion (which is OK) and believing that the other folks see
> their patronage as some kind of endorsement or association with
> the other religion. This is a crucial difference.
Right. The rabbis apparently were concerned about the latter but
were able to determine it wasn't a problem because TM was not a
religion.
> > Second, besides the appearance factor, there are many more
> > details than just the Kosher certificate that are of concern to
> > observant Jews, including, for instance, how the elevators are
> > programmed to run on the Sabbath (at least one must be set to
> > stop on every floor so no buttons need to be pushed).
>
> Of course. As I stated, Orthodox Jews *know* their requirements.
> I'm not sure what your point is, here.
My point is that you said explicitly the *only* risk was the
Kosher certificate. That was inaccurate, calling into question
your own knowledge of the requirements. But then, you are not
yourself observant.
> > Perhaps some of you are
> > > as amused as "Jew-lovin" Judy about a rabbi "snooping around".
>
> > It would be interesting to watch Don try to explain where he sees
> > a tone of amusement in my post.
>
> Well, Don didn't write the post - I did (Marcy) and I signed it.
> No, it wasn't "amusement" that I saw.
You said (see quote above) "Perhaps some of you are as amused as
`Jew-lovin' Judy." In other words, you saw amusement in my post.
You really can't deny your own words, Marcy, after you've posted
them in a public forum.
> It was unflattering and offensive - not to mention "inaccurate*.
Again, I'm sorry you find it unflattering and offensive to be
reminded of the care some Jews take to uphold Halacha. And my
post was accurate.
> > I'm
> > > not. Its offensive to suggest that a rabbi would closely supervise
> > > an occasion as "Jew lovin" Judy said in her post.
>
> > It's not at all clear why this would be in any way offensive to
> > someone who respects observance.
>
> Someone who respects and UNDERSTANDS observance doesn't need a
> circulating rabbi to supervise an event.
Then I guess you're saying the Jews who held their gatherings at
the hotel did not respect and understand observance. Because
there *were* rabbis there supervising the event. They weren't
supervising the participants per se but making sure it was
*possible* for them to fulfill their religious obligations.
My guess is it was some of the prospective guests who asked the
rabbis to check into the hotel before they agreed to stay there,
or the heads of the Jewish groups hosting the events, so they
could reassure the guests if any questions arose. There's a lot
of misinformation about TM floating around out there--you know,
the kind spread by people like you and Don.
Once a Kosher certificate
> is issued and other requirements are satisfied (like the elevator)
> there is no need for a rabbi to supervise anything.
Well, that's simply not accurate. Many observant Jews won't eat
at a restaurant even if it does have a Kosher certificate unless
a rabbi is present to make sure the requirements of Kashruth are
consistently observed in the preparation of the food. Go into
just about any restaurant patronized by observant Jews in New
York City, and you'll find a rabbi watching the kitchen and the
dining room.
. Orthodox Jews
> don't require a rabbi for services, for instance.
Services are one thing. These were weekend-long residential
religious events held in a hotel; the participants had to *live*
there for several days and nights during a religious holiday, for
which there are specific behavioral prescriptions.
Your whole
> portrayal of the rabbi as a nosey watchdog is offensive.
Once again, I'm sorry you find the concern that Jews be able to
observe Halacha offensive. I find it admirable. And again I'll
point out, because you seem determined to try to misstate the
case, the rabbis were watching the hotel facilities, not the
participants.
> > > Rabbis made *NO* investigation of TM because there was no reason
> > > to do so.
>
> > That is incorrect. I know *for a fact* the rabbis investigated
> > TM in connection with the Asbury Park hotel ownership. They
> > *were* concerned that the movement owns and runs the hotel, but
> > their concerns were satisfied.
>
> Again, if the hotel ownership was a Catholic group it would be
> the same thing. It is one thing to be aware of the religious
> ownership . It is something else to say that their concerns were
> satisfied in the sense that the religion was *investigated*
> and found to be compatible with Judaism. Do you see the difference?
Of course, but that isn't the point. What the rabbis found was
that TM was not religious.
> > I assure you that they don"t investigate the ownership
> > > of the Vista Hotel and it is patently absurd to imply that they
> > > would investigate other groups who use the hotel.
>
> > Since I never implied nor even remotely suggested the rabbis had
> > investigated any other groups who use the hotel--as far as I
> > know, they did not, nor would there have been any reason to do
> > so--it would seem Don's imagination is running out of control
> > again.
>
> I never implied or suggest that you did!
Yes, Marcy, you did, right there in the quote above.
My point is that *your*
> imagination is out of control in terms of what you think rabbis
> *investigate* and what *investigation* entails.
I am not imagining anything, Marcy. I was there, you were not.
Perhaps you're simply not familiar with this stringent a level of
observance. As I noted, some of these groups even had
*ultra*-Orthodox participants, Hassidim. Some of the other
groups were not as stringently Orthodox, and these did not have
rabbis there to investigate and supervise.
> Again, Don did not write the post.
>
> > > This is not the first time that "Jew lovin" Judy has made an
> > > ignorant and unflattering post about Jews, using the Berkely-
> > > Carteret Hotel as the backdrop.
>
> > If Don wishes to portray my comments about Jews as ignorant and
> > unflattering, it says a great deal about his own attitude toward
> > and knowledge of Judaism. It appears he doesn't find concern
> > with the details of observance an admirable trait, as I do. That
> > is the case with many Jews who are not themselves observant.
>
> Your comments about Jews *are* ignorant and unflattering. I am
> not interested in what you, an ignorant anti-Semite,
You destroy your credibility when you call me an anti-Semite,
Marcy.
Everything I've seen you say concerning Judaism on this newsgroup
has led me to conclude you have little respect for Judaism and
much less knowledge of it than you pretend. A Jew with any
knowledge of Judaism who *misrepresents* Judaism as you have
done, in the interests, moreover, of using those
misrepresentations to attack another group you have an agenda
against, is beneath contempt.
would pretend
> to know or understand about the details of Jewish observance. Your
> sophmoric and idiotic posts about the "Glatt Kosher kitchen" and
> Kaballah stand out, in my mind.
You mean, the posts in which I pointed out your numerous
misrepresentations of Halacha and Kaballah, among many other
aspects of Judaism? Funny, I never saw any response to those.
When you can claim being raised
> in an observant home, having observant grandparents on both sides,
> 45 years of continuing Jewish education and raising a child in that
> tradition, I'll be glad to discuss your *admiration* and your
> judgements about non-observant Jews.
You yourself are, by your own admission, not observant. A
nonobservant parent cannot raise a child in the tradition of
observance, nor does being raised in an observant home or having
observant parents make one observant, nor even "45 years of
continuing Jewish education" if that education is not in the
tradition of observance. Being observant involves being
observant, period. And in particular it involves not
misrepresenting Judaism.
There are many Jews who have come from observant backgrounds yet
have rejected observance for themselves. That's their choice,
and I make no judgment on that account. Many of these, however,
as I suggested, find it uncomfortable to be reminded of the
obligations they were raised in, and are therefore liable to
downplay what those obligations require.
There are also many levels of "observance." An acceptable level
of observance for Conservative Jews would not be sufficient for
Orthodox Jews.
What I *do* judge is the hypocrisy of a Jew who is not observant
pretending to be concerned with the observance of other Jews,
especially when her real purpose has nothing whatsoever to do
with Judaism but is merely to attack a group she feels is in
competition with her for her husband's allegiance.
> > > Now that "Jew lovin" Judy has created this appearance factor, I'll
> > > take the liberty of sharing her post with the appropriate people
> > > in Asbury Park.
>
> > Do share with them your response as well, Don, complete with the
> > epithet "Jew lovin". I'm sure the appropriate people will be
> > most interested. The only folks I've ever heard use that phrase
> > have been rabid anti-Semites.
>
> No problem. Its used in many contexts.
When used to refer to someone who respects and admires Judaism,
the phrase cannot be anything but anti-Semitic.
> > > The thing with those Kosher certificates is that they are given
> > > and they can be taken away.
>
> > They sure can be, depending on whether the food service is Kosher
> > or not.
>
> Well, as you pointed out, there are other factors. In this case, the
> problem is your insistence on a TM/Jewish connection endorsed by rabbis
> at the Berkeley Carteret Hotel.
I insisted on no such thing. Marcy, don't you realize anyone with
whom you have the bad judgment to make an issue of this is going
to see through you like a pane of glass?
> You created an "appearance factor" and that is a problem.
I created nothing. The rabbis decided there was no problem, and
I reported this.
> > Not on the basis of a communication from some obviously disturbed
> > individual whose only use for Judaism is as a tool of personal
> > revenge for a fantasized wrong.
>
> You reveal, once again, your profound ignorance. First of all, once
> I *understood* the TM/Jewish connection that you were promoting with
> regard to the hotel,
If this "understanding" isn't a manifestation of obvious
disturbance, I'm not sure what is, since I never "promoted" any
such "connection," nor did I imply any "endorsement" of TM by the
rabbis, or attempt to create a "Jew/TM appearance," as you
falsely said in your earlier post.
> I had an OBLIGATION to bring it to the attention of the
> appropriate people.
Who will, as I noted, see right through your attempt to deceive
them. Unless, of course, you decide to strategically alter what
I wrote, which I wouldn't put past you for a second.
> Second, I am a highly respected and well known member of my local
> Jewish community
Hypocrites can maintain a pose for quite some time before they're
found out.
> - as my family has been for generations.
My sympathies to your family.
Your very
> stupid comments about my "only use for Judaism" doesn't even make
> sense! You don't know anything about this particular religious
> obligation, obviously.
What I pointed out, Marcy, was that you were *misusing* that
obligation. Your concern is obviously not for the welfare of the
Jews in question, it's to damage TM.
You pick and choose which "obligations" you will assume; you do
not feel yourself obliged to be observant in your own life, yet
you find it important to attempt to cause a problem for the TM
hotel and the observant Jewish groups who use it on the basis
that you are "obliged" to do so. That's practically a
*definition* of hypocrisy.
And that's what I meant by saying your "only use for Judaism is
as a tool of personal revenge." The "wrong" part would apply
more directly to Don, but you're acting as his agent in this
regard because it reinforces your hold over him.
> This is not the first time that I've spoken to rabbis with regard
> to TM. For the record, let me assure you that I'm not viewed as
> "disturbed" nor is my level of observance or motivation brought
> into question.
Well, there are rabbis and rabbis. Rabbis who are not Orthodox
and don't feel observance is the obligation of every Jew would,
obviously, not question your lack of observance. And since they
know about TM only what twisted stories you choose to tell them,
they don't have any reason to question your motivations.
You choose your words with great care, Marcy, don't think I
haven't noticed. As in your other posts, you attempt to portray
Judaism as homogeneous and monolithic. If the rabbis you've
spoken to don't bring your level of observance into question, you
would have us believe, that would be the case with rabbis across
the board--but, of course, it isn't.
Like I said, I'm known and respected within this
> community.
Within *your* community, perhaps. What may be true of your
community would not necessarily be true of other communities in
which strict observance is considered a holy obligation.
Its not likely that my concerns would be viewed as a
> communication from an obviously disturbed person, like you said.
Previously, Marcy, your posts have not manifested the sort of
obvious disturbance--espcially the unbridled viciousness and
incoherence--that Don's do. This one did, which was why I
assumed it was from Don rather than from you. He is apparently
dragging you down with him.
I think you both are in very serious need of professional mental
health counseling.
Judy Stein
In article <5enl4c$o...@majesty.lightlink.com>,
d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald Krieger) wrote:
> Stokes Dickins (sdic...@fairfield.com) wrote:
> > On 18 Feb 1997 23:19:28 -0500, jst...@ziplink.net (Judith Stein)
> > wrote:
>
> > >Do share with them your response as well, Don, complete with the
> > >epithet "Jew lovin". I'm sure the appropriate people will be
> > >most interested. The only folks I've ever heard use that phrase
> > >have been rabid anti-Semites.
> > >
> > "Jew lovin" jogged my memory of a similar phrase that was popular in
> > the south, "n***** lovin". It was a derisive term applied by racists
> > to people who were of the opinion that all people deserved the same
> > opportunity to be educated and employed. They applied the term to
> > people who thought that all people deserved a place to eat and go to
> > the bathroom when traveling. They applied the term to people who
> > were brave enough to let their opinions be known.
>
> <snip>
>
> Huh?? Its hard for me to believe that you're sincere about this,
> Barbara. Only on amt is it possible (and predictable) that a
> Jewish woman posts about being hurt by the claims of TM's non-
> religious nature and tries to counter a lot of bogus and insulting
> remarks by Judy Stein and ends up being equated with a racist and
> being called an anti-Semite on another thread. Priceless, really
> priceless!
Except, of course, that that's not what happened. What happened
was I posted an observation concerning the Jewish groups who held
religious events at the TM hotel in Asbury Park, *you* made a lot
of bogus and insulting remarks in response, and *you* accused
*me* of being an anti-Semite, on the one hand, and a "Jew lover"
on the other.
> I think "n----- lovin" is an ugly terms imposed upon the good
> people you desribed by some racist rednecks. I think they meant
> that those people actually did love black people and supported
> their cause. Do you really think that when I said "Jew lovin"
> Judy that I meant that Judy actually loves the Jews and is in
> support of their causes? Do you really think that I meant the
> word "Jew" as derogatory like the "n" word?
The term "Jew-lover" is an exclusivly anti-Semitic term, there's
no question on that point. It would make no sense for you to use
it as a synonym for "anti-Semite" since I'm obviously *not* an
anti-Semite. What has happened here is that in your blind and
irrational hatred of TM, you've become incoherent, just as Don
does.
<snip>
> My "facts" and experiences regarding TM are limited. This is
> not the case with my Judaism
Actually it *is* the case. You are not observant, Marcy. As far
as your "facts" are concerned, you've made numerous incorrect
remarks concerning Jews and Judaism, which I've pointed out at
some length.
and I have no intention of sitting
> back and allowing Judy or ANYONE to make incorrect, insulting
> and "sloppy" statements
Since you haven't pointed out any yet, it's not clear what you're
shrieking about.
so that some erroneous connection between
> TM and Judaism can be made.
No connection, erroneous or otherwise, was made between TM and
Judaism.
The fact that this activity is
> considered someone's "recreation" is abhorent to me and I view
> it as anti-Semetic as the Southern Baptists that have a "policy"
> of trying to convert Jews.
Except that you made this all up, Marcy. None of what you say is
accurate.
> I accept that you are unwilling or unable to understand that
> rabbis have reviewed pertinent aspects of TM and determined that
> it is not compatible with Judaism.
*Some* rabbis may have done so. Again you falsely attempt to
portray Judaism as monolithic.
<snip>
> I am sorry that people on amt can't agree to disagree on what
> are largely "matters of opinion" and treat eachother with
> respect.
You mean, calling me "Jew-loving'" (in one breath) and
"anti-Semitic" (in the next) is your idea of treating people with
respect?
> I WILL NOT be bullied by some rude, ignorant and anti-Semetic
> person who spends most time name calling and massaging her own
> ego than actually saying something positive about TM.
Excuse me, Marcy, it was not I who was bullying you. I related a
*fact* about Jewish groups at the TM-owned hotel--not even to
you, to someone else--and you unleashed a torrent of vicious
invective and false accusations in response.
For God's sake, Marcy, take a look at yourself before you lose it
completely.
Stokes Dickins
On 22 Feb 1997 20:32:12 GMT, d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald
Krieger) wrote:
>Stokes Dickins (sdic...@fairfield.com) wrote:
>> On 18 Feb 1997 23:19:28 -0500, jst...@ziplink.net (Judith Stein)
>> wrote:
>
>> >Do share with them your response as well, Don, complete with the
>> >epithet "Jew lovin". I'm sure the appropriate people will be
>> >most interested. The only folks I've ever heard use that phrase
>> >have been rabid anti-Semites.
>> >
>> "Jew lovin" jogged my memory of a similar phrase that was popular in
>> the south, "n***** lovin". It was a derisive term applied by racists
>> to people who were of the opinion that all people deserved the same
>> opportunity to be educated and employed. They applied the term to
>> people who thought that all people deserved a place to eat and go to
>> the bathroom when traveling. They applied the term to people who
>> were brave enough to let their opinions be known.
>
><snip>
>
>Huh?? Its hard for me to believe that you're sincere about this,
>Barbara. Only on amt is it possible (and predictable) that a
>Jewish woman posts about being hurt by the claims of TM's non-
>religious nature and tries to counter a lot of bogus and insulting
>remarks by Judy Stein and ends up being equated with a racist and
>being called an anti-Semite on another thread. Priceless, really
>priceless!
>
>I think "n----- lovin" is an ugly terms imposed upon the good
>people you desribed by some racist rednecks. I think they meant
>that those people actually did love black people and supported
>their cause. Do you really think that when I said "Jew lovin"
>Judy that I meant that Judy actually loves the Jews and is in
>support of their causes?
I think that Judy's intent to be fair and honest certainly includes
Jews. Her tenacity and pugnacious style in her quest to be clear and
accurate about things related to Transcendental Meditation wins my
admiration again and again.
Do you really think that I meant the
>word "Jew" as derogatory like the "n" word?
It was a jolt to see the term. Now, I understand that you were being
sarcastic.
>
>Clue: What's the difference between "Honest Abe" and "Honest"
>John??
>
>
>> Yesterday, I read a book, I am a Star by Inge Auerbacher. At age 7,
>> in 1942 she was torn from her comfortable home and taken with her
>> family to Terezin. She was there until the end of the war. Three
>> members of her family survived.
>
>> Then I went to see the movie, Shine, and I saw that the damage caused
>> by that inhuman incarceration reached out to alter the natural course
>> of love and happiness in subsequent generations. The grip of fear
>> and terror was tenacious.
>
>What is your point, Barbara?
I think that the atrocities committed in Germany against the Jews
happened because of the heavy load of collective stress due to the
humiliation and economic disruption the Germans experienced at the end
of World War I. That stressful people are capable of damaging life in
far reaching ways is what I see in these stories.
Because I have experienced time and again, that TM is effective and
reliable in dissolving stress, in my mind, there's a huge implication
here that that which is very good at relieving stress and facilitating
recovery from stress should be vigorously employed to ease past,
present and future suffering.
I understand, Marcy, that we cannot agree on this point.
I regret that my positive take on TM is found to be very offensive
to those of differing opinions.
>> I drove back from Iowa City to Fairfield with a heightened
>> appreciation for people who practice TM for their own well being and
>> for, they hope, the well being of others. I don't think TM is the
>> only way that stress can be dissolved. I do think it's a really good
>> way.
>
>> Judy, I like that you think telling the facts about TM is a great
>> recreation.
>
>> Barbara
>
>It could be GREAT recreation and even productive without the
>tactics that have been discussed on this newsgroup many times
>before. Most of these "facts" are opinions and personal
>experiences, which is ok, too.
>
>My "facts" and experiences regarding TM are limited. This is
>not the case with my Judaism and I have no intention of sitting
>back and allowing Judy or ANYONE to make incorrect, insulting
>and "sloppy" statements so that some erroneous connection between
>TM and Judaism can be made. The fact that this activity is
>considered someone's "recreation" is abhorent to me and I view
>it as anti-Semetic as the Southern Baptists that have a "policy"
>of trying to convert Jews.
>
>I accept that you are unwilling or unable to understand that
>rabbis have reviewed pertinent aspects of TM and determined that
>it is not compatible with Judaism. Whether or not you ACCEPT
>it, that's just the way it is. I also accept that some Jews
>are satisfied to practice TM. This is the way it is - however
>I feel about it. I am quite happy and satisfied with the role
>that Judaism plays in my life along with the satisfaction I
>derive from community service. I am well known and respected
>within my religious community.
>
>I am sorry that people on amt can't agree to disagree on what
>are largely "matters of opinion" and treat eachother with
>respect.
>
>I WILL NOT be bullied by some rude, ignorant and anti-Semetic
>person who spends most time name calling and massaging her own
>ego than actually saying something positive about TM.
>
>Barbara, you really brought a nice tone to this newsgroup -
>along with some very strong pro-TM posts that have been sincere
>and effective. I understand that you appreciate Judy's pro-TM
>sentiments. Still, its strange that you don't have some kind
>of "bad" feeling about her tactics.
I guess because what Judy says about TM resonates with my experience
and because I don't know anything about Jewish protocol,
I didn't evaluate her post as you did.
Thank you for your compliment. Though we differ in regard to TM,
I figure anyone who loves to read and travel shares some of the
delight I take in life.
Barbara
dkrieger.
I responded yesterday, but my post never appeared.
Stokes Dickins (sdic...@fairfield.com) wrote:
: On 22 Feb 1997 20:32:12 GMT, d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald
: Krieger) wrote:
I'm relieved to see that you used the words "intent" and "quest".
I see *no* evidence of Judy's intent to be fair and honest. As for
her "tenacity" and "pugnacious style",.....well, that is a very
generous comment on your part. I can understand that you get some
kind of vicarious charge out of what you probably see as Judy
sticking it to the "bad guys". I say "vicarious charge" because
I think that *you* display this intent of fairness and honesty
in your posts. Perhaps you entertain the same lack of respect
and ill will, but have appropriate restraint or just better
manners. More than one pro-TM poster has expressed dismay over
the tone of Judys' posts. There is "nothing" positive, uplifting
or enlightening about them. In fact, a fair number have been
scared off. Any possibility for clarity or understanding is
effectively crushed under the weight of the "tone". Barbara, it
is possible to read your posts and "believe" that *you* have
derived some benefit from TM and have what I would call a "good
life". This is true for some others as well. This is not possible
when you read posts from Judy. I would think that you would
admire those who contribute something positive and display something
other than tired and ineffective knee jerk attitudes - clarifying
nothing, adding to the confusing and contributing to the polarization.
: Do you really think that I meant the
: >word "Jew" as derogatory like the "n" word?
: It was a jolt to see the term. Now, I understand that you were being
: sarcastic.
Why aren't you "jolted" by the tone of Judy's posts?
: >
: >Clue: What's the difference between "Honest Abe" and "Honest"
: >John??
: >
: >
: >> Yesterday, I read a book, I am a Star by Inge Auerbacher. At age 7,
: >> in 1942 she was torn from her comfortable home and taken with her
: >> family to Terezin. She was there until the end of the war. Three
: >> members of her family survived.
: >
: >> Then I went to see the movie, Shine, and I saw that the damage caused
: >> by that inhuman incarceration reached out to alter the natural course
: >> of love and happiness in subsequent generations. The grip of fear
: >> and terror was tenacious.
: >
: >What is your point, Barbara?
: I think that the atrocities committed in Germany against the Jews
: happened because of the heavy load of collective stress due to the
: humiliation and economic disruption the Germans experienced at the end
: of World War I. That stressful people are capable of damaging life in
: far reaching ways is what I see in these stories.
: Because I have experienced time and again, that TM is effective and
: reliable in dissolving stress, in my mind, there's a huge implication
: here that that which is very good at relieving stress and facilitating
: recovery from stress should be vigorously employed to ease past,
: present and future suffering.
: I understand, Marcy, that we cannot agree on this point.
: I regret that my positive take on TM is found to be very offensive
: to those of differing opinions.
Boy am I glad you know that we can't agree on this point!
Barbara, I'm not offended by your positive take on TM. We define
"stress" VERY differently. When you discuss how TM has worked for
you, personally, I HEAR you. When you discuss it in that larger
context, its really a matter of you going somewhere, philosophically,
where I don't wish to go. When you apply it, as you have above,
to the Holocaust, I am ........uncomfortable. I know the Holocaust
to be a *piece* of the *long term* persecution of the Jews. It
was not some one time event caused by collective stress. Obviously,
there were socio-economic factors, but that is not the "big
picture" - not for me.
Barbara, we may wish to discuss this in more detail at another time.
For now, I'll keep it simple. My family suffered losses in the
Holocaust. My daughter's in-laws are survivors. My family has
*always* joined our community in response to anti-Semitism and
persecution of the Jews. This "response" includes everything from
education to financial support for those who need it. The
American Jewish Community is active and well organized in this
regard. Although I do not believe that you "intend" to belittle
the history of persecution of the Jews or diminish the serious
work that is being done to educate people, help victims, and
work towards making sure that it doesn't happen again, that is
what you do.
: >> I drove back from Iowa City to Fairfield with a heightened
The "tone" of Judys' post resonates with the worst of my experiences
in TM - and the worst of what I've heard from others. Its really
baffles me that you think you need to actually know something about
Jewish protocol to evaluate the post.
: Thank you for your compliment. Though we differ in regard to TM,
: I figure anyone who loves to read and travel shares some of the
: delight I take in life.
: Barbara
Well, you are very welcome. Yes, I do take much delight in life.
I delight in the fact that I'm going to be a grandmother in April.
I delight in planning a huge landscaping project for our new home.
I delight in getting a small hint of spring. I delight in enjoying
my place in the lives of my friends and family members. I delight
in being alive. I have a very good life.
Stokes Dickins
On 26 Feb 1997 09:44:56 -0500, dkri...@city-net.com (dkrieger.)
wrote:
>I'm relieved to see that you used the words "intent" and "quest".
>I see *no* evidence of Judy's intent to be fair and honest. As for
>her "tenacity" and "pugnacious style",.....well, that is a very
>generous comment on your part. I can understand that you get some
>kind of vicarious charge out of what you probably see as Judy
>sticking it to the "bad guys". I say "vicarious charge" because
>I think that *you* display this intent of fairness and honesty
>in your posts. Perhaps you entertain the same lack of respect
>and ill will, but have appropriate restraint or just better
>manners. More than one pro-TM poster has expressed dismay over
>the tone of Judys' posts. There is "nothing" positive, uplifting
>or enlightening about them. In fact, a fair number have been
>scared off. Any possibility for clarity or understanding is
>effectively crushed under the weight of the "tone". Barbara, it
>is possible to read your posts and "believe" that *you* have
>derived some benefit from TM and have what I would call a "good
>life". This is true for some others as well. This is not possible
>when you read posts from Judy. I would think that you would
>admire those who contribute something positive and display something
>other than tired and ineffective knee jerk attitudes - clarifying
>nothing, adding to the confusing and contributing to the polarization.
When the Philadelphia Inquirer refers to TM as a Hindu practice,
I am thankful that Judy cuts Tracenet Trickster's no slack.
When I looked at Patrick Ryan's picture in the MUM annual and saw the
serenity, clarity and happiness in his face and I thought of all the
world wide mischief his TM Ex organization has propagated,
I say, "Way to go, Judy. Right on."
When I see people like Amos and Korrinn get tranceneted into the "get
angry with TM" mind set,
I love that Judy doesn't let anybody get away with anything when
posters use a.m.t. to say things about TM that are simply not true.
What do I think of Judy Stein's tone? It is music to my ears.
I think nice is nice, but clarity is best.
I read that in Poland recently a synogague was burned down.
The article said that Jews had lived in Poland for 800 years and that
during the Holocaust a facility was built in which 3 million Jews were
killed. The community response to the synogague burning was immediate
denouncement of anti-Semitism. I take that as a sign of growth of
consciousness in the world community.
But, what about Yugoslavia and Rwanda? TM's failure or TM's
imperative? When I hear that a civil war that had raged on and on in
one Aftrican country for years, and when many people in the country
started TM, the civil war came to a close, I think it's time to use
this technology for world peace on a larger scale. When I read about
the TM prison project in Senagal which made such a positive impact on
the prisoners, I think it's time to use this technology to maximize
human potential on the planet. And when I remember the neurologist
telling my husband that after he started TM, he noticed that his nerve
conduction rate was faster, I say, "It's time to see what TM can do to
help make getting older, mean getting better" for more than 30% of the
aging population.
>: >My "facts" and experiences regarding TM are limited. This is
>: >not the case with my Judaism
In this regard, we are reversed in our experience. I was 25 when I
first became friends with a Jew. I grew up in a community of
Methodists and Southern Baptists. He was such a bright, warm,
interesting person. I told him I was reading a book about Jesus
written by a Jew. He said, "I am a Jew." I realized that I really
didn't know anything about Jews except that in the Old Testament they
did animal sacrifices. I read a stack of books to try to get over my
ignorance, but I know that I'll never know about Judiasm in the way
that you do.
The story of Paul Reichmann in Business Week, Jan. 20, 1997, deepened
my understanding of where a religious Jew gets his inner strength, and
it helped me understand something in TM that had plagued me.
This is the part that caught my attention:
"Paul's abrupt transformation from the Einstein of Real Estate into
the Man Who Blew $10 Billion humbled him but _didn't come close_
to extinguishing his developer's verve.....A few hours before putting
the project into administration, he phoned his two most trusted
construction managers and asked them to remain on the job come what
may. "It was an instinctive thing on my part, rather than a definite
plan," Reichmann said. 'I wanted the talent in place in case I was
able to make a comeback.'"
That display of what looks to me like inner strength helped me to
understand what was meant in the TM poster that said, "Success without
Stress." Oh, that made me angry when it came out. What do "they"
mean, success without stress? Then when I read this story about a man
who lost a $10 billion deal and 2 hours later was making plans for the
future, I got a feeling for how being spiritually strong could make
the experience of gain or loss be not devastatingly, end-of-the-world
stressful. Having free access to the inner reservoir of strength and
energy just might make one invincible in the face of stress.
So, you might say, "Why do you think that TM could have anything to
offer to dealing with the suffering caused so many Jewish people by
the losses of the Holocaust?" As Susan said in her discussion about
the Maharishi Effect that it is through the actions of individuals
that coherence and harmony are expressed. I'll probably get in
trouble with you if I suggest that if the individual's involved in
all the great support programs for families of Holocaust survivors
that you outlined, used TM's recovery from fatigue and stress feature,
it seems to me that there is the possibility that that would be a good
thing.
>: Thank you for your compliment. Though we differ in regard to TM,
>: I figure anyone who loves to read and travel shares some of the
>: delight I take in life.
>
>: Barbara
>
>
>Well, you are very welcome. Yes, I do take much delight in life.
>I delight in the fact that I'm going to be a grandmother in April.
>I delight in planning a huge landscaping project for our new home.
>I delight in getting a small hint of spring. I delight in enjoying
>my place in the lives of my friends and family members. I delight
>in being alive. I have a very good life.
See, Marcy, I get caught up in admiring your interest in landscaping
and that you are going to have the supreme joy of becoming a
grandmother and I just like you. I like that you have brought so much
happiness to Don. I got an e-mail the other day from someone saying
how much she liked working with Don at MIU and how much his
contributions during that time were appreciated. Sometimes it's hard
to be plain and clear with someone you've grown to like.
Barbara
>
>
>
Donald Krieger
Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
> In article <5effk7$n...@dns.city-net.com>,
> dkri...@city-net.com (dkrieger.) wrote:
> > Judith Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
> >
> > : That is incorrect. I know *for a fact* the rabbis investigated
> > : TM in connection with the Asbury Park hotel ownership.
> >
> > Your explanations are neither authoritative nor credible,
> Actually they're both, but you're free to entertain whatever dark
> fantasies you wish. We're used to that from you.
You claim your explanations are authoritative but you don't know who
the Rabbi's are? What then is the source of your authority? Did you
read it on the bathroom wall when you were at Asbury Park? Who the fuck
are you?
> but I
> > am open to gaining a deeper understanding. Please provide the names, etc.
> > of these Rabbis. I would like to talk with them.
> Sorry, Don, I'm not at all sure why you'd think I'd have their
> names etc. I don't, of course.
> Don, you and Marcy know *I* know the two of you are
> grandstanding. None of this has anything to do with any deep
> commitment to Judaism on your part. It has to do with your deep
> commitment to do TM whatever injury you can, by any means
> available, including exploiting Judaism and Jews to that end.
I think you are assuming we are like you, Judy. You will clearly do
anything to defend both TM and yourself.
> The Asbury Park situation was no big deal. The Jewish groups had
> apparently heard false tales of TM being a Hindu religious cult
> and needed to assure themselves it wasn't before they'd be
> comfortable holding their religious observances in a hotel owned
> and operated by TM. They checked into it, found out TM wasn't a
> Hindu religious cult, and that was the end of it. This was two
> summers ago. What if anything has transpired since, I have no
> idea.
You don't think it's a big deal that you used this to make an argument
to amt readers that TM is ok for Jews? You're so effective and efficient
in activity - how about getting us the names? Are you afraid that if
they are asked about it, they will contradict what you have said? You
speak for them to many Jews on amt as well as others, yet you are unwilling
or unable to support your claims with effective action? Don't worry. We
will be in touch with the Rabbi's in the Asbury Park area. We
have not had any trouble before in these kinds of contacts and anticipate
none here. If there's a problem, they will want to know, and there's not
a problem, we want to know. So you can just take yourself out of it,
Jew-hater.
Michael A. Dwyer
d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald Krieger) wrote:
>Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
>> In article <5effk7$n...@dns.city-net.com>,
>> dkri...@city-net.com (dkrieger.) wrote:
>> > Your explanations are neither authoritative nor credible,
>> Actually they're both, but you're free to entertain whatever dark
>> fantasies you wish. We're used to that from you.
>You claim your explanations are authoritative but you don't know who
>the Rabbi's are? What then is the source of your authority? Did you
>read it on the bathroom wall when you were at Asbury Park? Who the fuck
>are you?
Who the fuck is Judy Stein? She's the Earth Bound but Supreme Arbiter
of Universal and Cosmic Truth! Everyone knows that!. Come on Don, get
with the program.
Hail His Divinity Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Jagadguru, Bhagwan
Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math
Michael Dwyer
Chanelling for the late, Greater Pope Adso I - Holy as all hell. (Buy
into the vibe.)
The Greater Pope is dead. Long live His Holiness, The Greater Pope!
Judy Stein
In article <5f82ru$8...@majesty.lightlink.com>,
d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald Krieger) wrote:
> Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
<snip>
> > The Asbury Park situation was no big deal. The Jewish groups had
> > apparently heard false tales of TM being a Hindu religious cult
> > and needed to assure themselves it wasn't before they'd be
> > comfortable holding their religious observances in a hotel owned
> > and operated by TM. They checked into it, found out TM wasn't a
> > Hindu religious cult, and that was the end of it. This was two
> > summers ago. What if anything has transpired since, I have no
> > idea.
>
> You don't think it's a big deal that you used this to make an argument
> to amt readers that TM is ok for Jews?
I did NOT use this to make an argument to amt readers that TM is
OK for Jews.
There are arguments to be made to that effect--from TM's
perspective--but this was not one of them.
I never suggested or even remotely implied that the Jewish
groups' willingness to hold their religious events at the hotel
in Asbury Park was an endorsement of TM for Jews.
That is your and Marcy's deliberate, willful, intentional, and
thoroughly malicious distortion of what I wrote.
Donald Krieger
Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
> In article <5f82ru$8...@majesty.lightlink.com>,
> d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald Krieger) wrote:
> > Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
> <snip>
> > > The Asbury Park situation was no big deal. The Jewish groups had
> > > apparently heard false tales of TM being a Hindu religious cult
> > > and needed to assure themselves it wasn't before they'd be
> > > comfortable holding their religious observances in a hotel owned
> > > and operated by TM. They checked into it, found out TM wasn't a
> > > Hindu religious cult, and that was the end of it. This was two
> > > summers ago. What if anything has transpired since, I have no
> > > idea.
> >
> > You don't think it's a big deal that you used this to make an argument
> > to amt readers that TM is ok for Jews?
> I did NOT use this to make an argument to amt readers that TM is
> OK for Jews.
Below is a piece of your original post from May 1996 about Asbury
Park, Jews attending residence courses there, and your very thinly veiled
allusions that Orthodox Rabbi's approved of the whole thing. By the way,
since you knew what they thought and did, how come you don't know who they
are? And for other readers, this is the person who speaks with authority
about TM and religion and every other topic under the sun, but when caught,
has done nothing wrong, knows nothing anyway, was offended, and by the way,
the offenders are confused or worse and are themselves guilty of whatever
it is they point out about her. This is the person that so many of you
venerate, a liar, a Jew (and every other religious person) hater, and, by
the way, a very sick person who probably deserves our pity except that she
is a malignant bitch.
Don
Subject: Re: Marcy's story
From: [9]jst...@cnct.com (Judy Stein)
Date: 1996/05/10
Message-Id: <vEKanq2B...@cnct.com>
<snip>
At Asbury Park during residence courses, there was always one
table at dinner reserved for Jewish Sabbath observance on Fridays
and Saturdays. It was always full, sometimes to overflowing,
with TMers, including Sidhas and TM teachers.
Interestingly, the hotel in Asbury Park that houses the TM
facility is also a commercial operation, hosting various events
such as conventions and weddings. On weekends there were
frequently large Jewish groups, many of them Orthodox, and in
several cases ultra-Orthodox (Hasidim), using the hotel for
religious functions. (The hotel has a glatt Kosher kitchen under
full rabbinical supervision and goes to considerable lengths to
accommodate Sabbath observance requirements.) The Orthodox
rabbis in charge of these functions knew of the hotel's ownership
by TM and would typically do a very thorough investigation to
make sure there was nothing the least bit incompatible with their
religious requirements about using the hotel.
If you know how scrupulous Orthodox Jews are about refraining
from even the least contact, or even *appearance* of contact,
with another religion, the fact that these rabbis were satisfied
that it was OK for them to use the hotel is significant.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * [12]jst...@cnct.com +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Judy Stein
In article <5fakrj$e...@majesty.lightlink.com>,
d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald Krieger) wrote:
> Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
> > In article <5f82ru$8...@majesty.lightlink.com>,
> > d...@hp71550n.neuronet.pitt.edu (Donald Krieger) wrote:
> > > Judy Stein (jst...@ziplink.net) wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > The Asbury Park situation was no big deal. The Jewish groups had
> > > > apparently heard false tales of TM being a Hindu religious cult
> > > > and needed to assure themselves it wasn't before they'd be
> > > > comfortable holding their religious observances in a hotel owned
> > > > and operated by TM. They checked into it, found out TM wasn't a
> > > > Hindu religious cult, and that was the end of it. This was two
> > > > summers ago. What if anything has transpired since, I have no
> > > > idea.
> > >
> > > You don't think it's a big deal that you used this to make an argument
> > > to amt readers that TM is ok for Jews?
>
> > I did NOT use this to make an argument to amt readers that TM is
> > OK for Jews.
>
> Below is a piece of your original post from May 1996 about Asbury
> Park,
Uh-huh. If you find you can't support the charge you made about
my current post, look back and see if you can find an earlier one
you'll have a better chance of twisting, and pretend you were
really talking about *it*. Too bad you'll come a-cropper on that
one as well.
Jews attending residence courses there, and your very thinly veiled
> allusions that Orthodox Rabbi's approved of the whole thing.
There are NO such allusions, thinly veiled or otherwise, in that
post, as anyone can see who reads it (including you, Don).
I reported the FACT that Jews attended TM residence courses at
Asbury Park. I also reported the FACT that the Orthodox rabbis
had no problem holding JEWISH religious events at Asbury Park.
Two separate facts. Two explicitly different situations,
described in separate paragraphs, with no connection whatsoever
made between them. The Jews who attended TM residence courses
had nothing to do with the Orthodox religious celebrations; the
Orthodox Jews attending the religious celebrations had nothing to
do with the TM residence courses.
I have NO knowledge, nor did I ever suggest or imply or hint I
had, that the rabbis at the Orthodox celebrations approved of
Jews attending TM residence courses. I have no idea if they even
knew about it.
The significance of the Jewish TMers is that some Jews who are at
least religious enough to observe Sabbath have no problem about
being involved with TM.
The significance of the Orthodox Jewish groups holding their
events at the hotel is that their rabbis decided TM was not a
Hindu religious cult.
In that 1996 post, I used the first situation to make the point
that some Jews see no conflict between practicing TM and
practicing Judaism. That is certainly not a secret, nor should
it come as a surprise to anybody, notwithstanding Marcy's
deceitful attempts to portray Judaism as monolithic and
homogeneous in regard to doctrines and practice (a portrayal
belied by the fact that you and she claim to be religiously
Jewish and yet are not observant).
I did not use the second situation to reinforce the first point,
even in that earlier post. It was an entirely separate point.
The second situation does not imply any endorsement by the
Orthodox rabbis of TM practice for Jews. And it was the second
situation, not the first, that I had mentioned in my post to
Curtis, the one that you and Marcy started deceptively and
hypocritically shrieking about, falsely claiming I had suggested
some kind of alliance between TM and these Orthodox groups.
As if you cared about the Orthodox groups, you who feel no
obligation to be observant. You don't even observe the Sabbath.
Both your posts are timestamped well after sundown Friday.
By the way,
> since you knew what they thought and did, how come you don't know who they
> are?
Because I did not ask them to give me their names, Don. Why
should I have? I had no reason to demand to know the identities
of other guests at the hotel.
And for other readers, this is the person who speaks with authority
> about TM and religion and every other topic under the sun, but when caught,
> has done nothing wrong, knows nothing anyway, was offended, and by the way,
> the offenders are confused or worse and are themselves guilty of whatever
> it is they point out about her.
The person who has been caught, once again, is you, Don. You
have pointed out nothing except your own hypocrisy and
deceitfulness, as other readers will see if they compare the post
you quoted with your false allegations about what it says, and if
they note the inconsistency between your professed concern for
the religious well-being of observant Jews with the fact that you
yourself feel no obligation even to observe the Sabbath.
This is the person that so many of you
> venerate, a liar, a Jew (and every other religious person) hater,
I do not lie, nor do I hate Jews or any other religious people.
To the contrary, I have profound respect for all sincere
religionists, even those whose beliefs I do not share.
"All sincere religionists" does not include you and Marcy,
however. My respect for sincere religionists is matched by my
contempt for hypocrites.
Just for the record, if I were ever to decide to join a religion,
it would be Judaism. I have very seriously considered converting
and may eventually do so if I ever feel I'm capable of taking on
the obligations of observance. Judaism has more personal
resonance for me than any other religion, far more than
Christianity, the religion of my heritage.
That's why I find your and Marcy's misrepresentations of Judaism
and hypocrisy concerning your own purported devotion to it
particularly odious.
and, by
> the way, a very sick person who probably deserves our pity except that she
> is a malignant bitch.
The sick and malignant liar is you, Don. You and Marcy both.
I'm leaving in the copy Don has so kindly provided of my earlier
post so everyone can see how he has maliciously attempted to
distort what I wrote.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++