Witnessing
Tim Antonsen
Meditators --
Something I was reading last night reminded me of
"witnessing", an experience I remember from the old days
when I was devoted to TM and a siddha. I'm curious about
the current attitudes and beliefs about witnessing.
For those who aren't familiar with TM lingo, "witnessing" is
the sensation of observing oneself act, with an awareness
that is separate from that which is consciously performing
of daily tasks. There's no outward signs when it's
happening. I remember it as sort of like watching a movie of
somebody else, only the somebody was *me*!
I was told by my TM teacher (who took TTC from MMY himself,
in Spain) that witnessing was a normal precursor to Cosmic
Consciousness. We were accordingly pleased whenever it
happened. (As you might guess, I would be less pleased to
experience it today.)
Is this experience still called "witnessing" among TM
people? How is it regarded these days? How frequent is
it in the experience of you and/or your acquaintances?
--Tim
James Cook
: Meditators --
: For those who aren't familiar with TM lingo, "witnessing" is
: the sensation of observing oneself act, with an awareness
: that is separate from that which is consciously performing
: of daily tasks.
Of course, you've defined the word "witnessing" in terms of your own
experiences some two decades ago, as close as I can reckon. It is not
the definition I've heard before.
My understanding is as follows. As one is more in touch with
conciousness and the inner awareness, a greater dimension of inner quiet
and feeling of the inner self is there. This awareness of the quiet inner
field of conciousness, sense of self, doesn't feel as consumed by the
activities of the day . . . ordinary busy activities. When this palpable
sense of the quiet inner life is experienced in this way, it is in
contrast to the way one often feels consumed by activities . . . as when
things feel that they are "in your face" to use a popular expression.
Those searching for descriptions of that feeling have described it in
many ways, none of which really convey it well. "Witnessing" and
"separate" were some of the words folks coined along with others, like
"at total peace" and so forth. They're interesting to listen to, but are
less than a shadow of the experience itself.
There's no outward signs when it's
: happening. I remember it as sort of like watching a movie of
: somebody else, only the somebody was *me*!
That's a novel description. Is it like when you remember a dream where
you "see yourself" acting and "are acting" at the same time? I've heard
lot's of people have funny dreams like this, or at least remember them in
this way.
: I was told by my TM teacher (who took TTC from MMY himself,
: in Spain) that witnessing was a normal precursor to Cosmic
: Consciousness. We were accordingly pleased whenever it
: happened.
I think that "cosmic conciousness" was a phrase used on occasion to refer
to one's regular experience of pure conciousness. . . simply the living of
daily life while infused with the richest, most pure conciousness
available within us. It was "cosmic" in the sense that Maharishi has often
characterized the most fundamental material of existence to be a field of
pure conciousness. To my knowledge, Maharishi pointed out many things to
students/teachers that were noteworthy about conciousness, and increased
conciousness, many small things here and there however modest but
encouraging or interesting. These moments of special quiet, or
sense of self, were among the experiences some might have, and to this
limited extent may have been phrased as precursors of future peace and
conciousness in life.
Given the modest ability of words to accurately describe what we feel, let
alone accurately describe objective experiences people share, they are not a
great indicator of a person's actual experience . . . . subjective as it
is. Everyone's heard the old saw about having ten witnesses to a an
accident, and each one saw it happen differently only a few minutes
later. That's why investigators prefer to take down the witnesses story
almost immediately . . . . it'll change and get fuzzy within days . .
maybe hours. . . . the stories may change as the memory fades or through
suggestion. In fact, one of the troubles investigators have with
witnesses, is the risk that the witness will begin to recall what is
suggested to him by the investigator's questions as though those were his
own memories. A police detective who's a friend of mine explained this.
(As you might guess, I would be less pleased to
: experience it today.)
You said you were pleased when it happened. But . . . yes, I would
certainly guess that you have a revised interpretation now. You've
explained how you've consulted with psychologists and cult rescue guys
that have helped you conclude that you may have been psychotic back then .
. . . as evidenced by your two-people-in-one analogy.
: Is this experience still called "witnessing" among TM
: people?
I don't know. Different people come up with different lingo and custom
descriptions all the time.
How is it regarded these days?
Although people may have coined new terms, I would guess
they'd still talk about these things according to their individual
experiences . . . as always. Look how many ways you've found to talk
about things over and over. It's natural.
When I was a boy, things I liked were "cool." That gave way to the
younger kids who called the same stuff "hip," which gave way to the term
"bad", which (last I heard) was something like "awesome." It just seems
that words on their face do not mean the same for everyone.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
James Cook Internet: jc...@netcom.com
San Francisco Bay, Calififornia Compuserve: 76520,2727
[tom pall 512-255-5915]
>
>Meditators --
>
> <<<< Mucho Deleteo >>>>
>
>Is this experience still called "witnessing" among TM
>people? How is it regarded these days? How frequent is
>it in the experience of you and/or your acquaintances?
>
>--Tim
Within my circle of friends, TM teachers, sidhas, witnessing is not discussed
any more. I believe fewer people are witnessing than before. I know I am,
at least. Taking the TM-Sidhis blew it all away.
My suppositions are as follows: people who only do TM are more likely to
witness. This is because they practice a rather static/unlively encounter
with the transcendent. This more easily allows for a quiet awareness
of pure consciousness in tandem with waking, sleeping, dreaming consciousness
(at least that was so when I did a lot of witnessing). It also allows for
[you're gonna love this, Tim], the evocation of a dissociative mental state
brought about not by pure consciousness in tandem with waking, sleeping,
dreaming, but by slow release of just the right amount of the right kind of
stress. This sort of "witnessing" can be very uncomfortable and scary, as
you actually do feel like you are staring at the back of your eyeballs and
that there are kind of two of you. I believe that this form of "witnessing"
is becoming less frequent, as LSD is no longer in vogue. Much of the
really psycho unstressing you saw on your TTC had to do with drugs.
A very famous member of the TM movement when attempting to convince someone to
take a plunge into committing himself to a stint with the movement said, during
the discussion "I know how you're feeling. I remember having in my hand a
hit of some really dynamite acid and trying to decide whether to take the
acid or go on teacher training."
Further supposition: MMY was getting tired of all the blissola experiences
people were having during TM and on rounding that didn't really amount to
anything, really. Flash is trash (the purpose of TM is to take out the
trash, not to go though it and be in awe of it like you're watching 4th of
July fireworks). Appeared on the scene the TM-Sidhi program. That brought
a lively/dynamic skirmish between the transcendent and waking state. This
dynamic skirmish brings consciousness, bliss and the transcendent throughout
the body and into the environment as well. Then also came Chropra with the
Bliss Technique. If you remember to do it right, it does bring lots of
bliss into every cell and fiber of the body (thereby warding off the ravages
of ageing and disease).
Personally, I don't witness anymore. I do feel my consciousness extends beyond
the bounds of my body and my body has consciousness thoughout it. I also have
a little anecdotal proof(?) that my consciousness extends beyond my body:
I joined a friend up at MIU last year when he was finishing his flying block.
We registered for a two week CCP together. My friend had not yet started
hopping. After a few days I started feeling a bit discouraged for my friend,
who just sat there like a statue during flying time at the Mahararishi
Patanjali Memorial Tennis Courts. So I settled down within myself, moved
my awareness from inside my head to inside his head and performed the
flying sutra for him. He flew up into the air, fell back down to the foam,
laughed, crawled over to me and told me to keep out of his head.
Instead of witnessing (part of CC) I have unity type experiences and every
once in a while vedic cognition. Apparantly the TM-Sidhis doesn't want
us to stop at CC.
Tim Antonsen
: Tim Antonsen spaketh thusly unto the world:
: Of course, you've defined the word "witnessing" in terms of your own
Mr. Cook, you seem to be confused about who's who here. I've been out of the
Movement for a while, but only half as long as you seem to think. I've
stated that several times.
: You've explained how you've consulted with psychologists and cult rescue guys
Again, you are evidently confused. I have never consulted with a "cult
rescue" guy or a psychologist about TM.
: that have helped you conclude that you may have been psychotic back then .
: . . . as evidenced by your two-people-in-one analogy.
Again, you have evidently confused me with someone else. I have never claimed
to have had psychotic experiences. I did see people who were having really
serious problems, though. Wigging out must be a frightening experience
anywhere, and it appeared especially so in the MIU milieu.
: When I was a boy, things I liked were "cool." That gave way to the
: younger kids who called the same stuff "hip," which gave way to the term
: "bad", which (last I heard) was something like "awesome." It just seems
: that words on their face do not mean the same for everyone.
My 11-year old source on the matter tells me its back to "cool."
--Tim
David Weinstein
>My 11-year old source on the matter tells me its back to "cool."
Phhht! Anyone who's ever heard of or watched Beavis and Butthead knows
that!
Your 11 year old watch it? Just keep him away from matches! :)
Cool! heh heh heh heh heh heh
D
--
Disclaimer: Me. ME! me me me me me me me me me me! :)
Stern/Kibo in '96
Apostrophes not supported.
--
Tim Antonsen
: anto...@cnd.hp.com (Tim Antonsen) writes:
: >My 11-year old source on the matter tells me its back to "cool."
: Phhht! Anyone who's ever heard of or watched Beavis and Butthead knows that!
: Your 11 year old watch it? Just keep him away from matches! :)
I don't have an 11 year old. Just an 11 year old source. Who's bored by B&B,
and consequently doesn't watch it. Fortunately.
--Tim
Joe Kellett
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
References: <jcookCG...@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom
James Cook (jc...@netcom.com) wrote:
<deletions>
: You said you were pleased when it happened. But . . . yes, I would
: certainly guess that you have a revised interpretation now. You've
: explained how you've consulted with psychologists and cult rescue guys
: that have helped you conclude that you may have been psychotic back then .
: . . . as evidenced by your two-people-in-one analogy.
You're probably thinking of me. I have consulted via telephone with Pat
Ryan at TM-Ex who is a professional "exit counsellor" (a "cult-rescue guy").
He specializes in, but is not limited to, TM. I have also consulted in
person with two psychologists specializing in cult mind control. One these
is, of course, Dr. Singer. The other is a former Moonie with a license at
the Master's level who also does "exit counselling".
As for "psychotic"... After TTC I experienced:
(1) That I was a "rishi" (sort of "seer of cosmic truth").
(2) That I was an "incarnated deva" (analagous to the Western concept of
"angel"). This meant that I was of a completely different order than
ordinary humans.
(3) That I had been personal buddies with MMY back in the _un_incarnated
"deva" days since he was also a "deva" rather than human. Furthermore,
because of my special nature I was to play a special role with MMY in the
Movement.
Of course, I went to "verify this with the Master".
When I told MMY I was a "rishi", he said I was right. When I approached him
that same night to tell him the other stuff, he said "Stop, what you have in
your mind is right" and walked off.
I now consider these experiences to have been the result of TM-induced
psychosis. But regardless of the cause, I consider MMY's handling of my
"experiences" to demonstrate either incompetence or maliciousness on his
part.
But I am aware that there are TM explanations predicated on my "weakness"
and on MMY's infallibility and impeccability.
--Joe
--
Joe Kellett
jkel...@netcom.com
an4...@anon.penet.fi
>As for "psychotic"... After TTC I experienced:
>
>(1) That I was a "rishi" (sort of "seer of cosmic truth").
>
>(2) That I was an "incarnated deva" (analagous to the Western concept of
>"angel"). This meant that I was of a completely different order than
>ordinary humans.
>
>(3) That I had been personal buddies with MMY back in the _un_incarnated
>"deva" days since he was also a "deva" rather than human. Furthermore,
>because of my special nature I was to play a special role with MMY in the
>Movement.
- How EXACTLY did you "experience" that ?
- Did this knowledge "come to you" intuitively ?
- Was this transmitted to you orally from MMY or any other person ?
- Did you have any experiences of intuitive knowledge that could be verified,
say about the cosmos, human body, etc, that Rishis/Seers are supposed to
have ?
- If not, why did you not question yourself that "experience" of being a
"rishi" ?
- If you did, how do you explain it, since you think that MMY is a fraud ?
>Of course, I went to "verify this with the Master".
>
>When I told MMY I was a "rishi", he said I was right.
Again, what EXACTLY did you tell MMY ?
Did you say to him: ?
Joe: "I am a Rishi"
MMY: "you are right"
As you know, per TM philosophy, since we are all nothing but consciousness
which includes the "Rishi" (knower) aspect, strictly speaking, it is true,
though it does NOT validate what you claim in point 1 above. In other words,
a "rishi" in Sanskrit, has MORE than 1 meaning ! (rishi-devata-chandas, does
it ring a bell ?)
>When I approached him
>that same night to tell him the other stuff, he said "Stop, what you have in
>your mind is right" and walked off
I do not mean to belittle your experience but did you ever stop to think that
the above sentence could be read instead of "Stop, what you have in your mind
is right" as "Stop what you have in your mind" = "is right" meaning, stop all
those nonsense hallucinations, by stopping thought, by transcending, that
"is right", that is the right thing to do, for you ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
James Cook
: Of course, I went to "verify this with the Master".
: When I told MMY I was a "rishi", he said I was right. When I approached him
: that same night to tell him the other stuff, he said "Stop, what you have in
: your mind is right" and walked off.
: I now consider these experiences to have been the result of TM-induced
: psychosis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kellett spaketh thusly unto the world:
: : >But the
: : >story about how my life was distorted by these false beliefs, how I managed
: : >anyway to survive MMY's incompetent (or malicious) "spiritual" instruction,
: : >and how I finally recovered to start leading a normal life again, all have
: : >little to do with TM.
Good point. You may be more right that you realize when you say that your
problems had little to do with TM. It sounds to me, based on your many
posts, that you have _personally_, for reasons you consider private, had a
rough life for a decade or more, for reasons not related to TM.
Your individual problems may be a good example of the way in which those
who are having a hard time in life sometimes project their own problems
onto those they are close to, loved ones, spouses, professors or, as now,
teaching organizations they've been in contact with. It's not uncommon to
hear on the news that people here and there have taken rash, harmful
action against employers, fellow employees and even family when their
personal problems become too much. Americans reading this know the
incidents I'm referring to in recent years.
You made _strong_ assumptions about this idea that you and Maharishi were
"devas" in some past life, so strong was your belief, that, in your own
words, your life was "distorted by these false beliefs."
Again, in your own words:
: There is a _lot_ that occurred during the time I thought I was an
:incarnated : deva-rishi that I choose not to reveal publicly yet, or
:possibly ever.
Again, in your own words:
:I don't consider that any subsequent events provide interesting anecdotal
:evidence about TM, and therefore choose not to expose these events. I do
:stipulate, however, that my beliefs and behavior for the next 10 years were
:often _extremely_ bizarre.
Obviously, you have wrestled for at least 10 years with extremely bizarre
psychological problems, expressed, as you say, in bizarre beliefs and
bizarre behavior. Ten years of delusions is a very long time to be
confused. I'm glad you correctly point out that those years of delusion
are not evidence relevant to TM.
In reading your posts on this subject,
(1) you've described Maharishi's references to "rishis" in various
lectures, and
(2) you may have spoken to him about the topic, and
(3) one day, you approached Maharishi with some thought in mind
about your status as a supernatural being, and
(4) you guessed that he read your mind, and guessed that he'd
focused on one thought out of many you may have had in those
moments, and
(5) you guessed what thought _he_ had in his mind at the time he
spoke to you, and
(6) you guessed what he meant by what he said, and
(7) you privately developed a consuming belief, founded on your own
assumptions, that you actually were a supernatural being, and
(8) you took no great action to clarify or explore such a radical
assumption by further conversations with Maharishi or others at
that time, and
(9) you endured at least ten years of bizarre beliefs and
delusions which derive significantly from your silent assumptions
about what others were thinking about your private thoughts, and
(10) you feel that you've been through a bad ordeal, that you
made no mistakes that contributed to it, and
(11) based upon Dr. Singer's psychological analysis, you and she
have determined that some of your episodes may have been psychotic or
severely dissociative, and that you now clearly comprehend the
causes of your experiences and are thinking clearly, and
(12) it was all the fault of persons other than yourself
In your own words, the causes of your above experiences and
dissatisfaction with TM are reflected as follows:
:Having determined that MMY deluded me, either out of his incompetence or
:maliciousness, leaving TM was an easy thing do to. I think this would be
:obvious to anyone not committed to TM.
I think that your view is neither logical nor balanced. I think that you
are unfairly attributing to others responsibility for your own private
assumptions and decisions. You do not wish to discuss those many difficult
years, which is fine, yet, when anyone wonders about what they may reflect
about the quality of your analysis and opinions, you object that such
inquiry is an unfair "blame the victim game." Those years can remain
private as far as I am concerned. But I hope that you'll keep an open
mind about what caused your situation, and consider carefully how accurate
and reasonable your current beliefs are.
James Cook
Joe Kellett
: Joe Kellet <jkellettC...@netcom.com> writes:
: >As for "psychotic"... After TTC I experienced:
: >
: >(1) That I was a "rishi" (sort of "seer of cosmic truth").
: >
: >(2) That I was an "incarnated deva" (analagous to the Western concept of
: >"angel"). This meant that I was of a completely different order than
: >ordinary humans.
: >
: >(3) That I had been personal buddies with MMY back in the _un_incarnated
: >"deva" days since he was also a "deva" rather than human. Furthermore,
: >because of my special nature I was to play a special role with MMY in the
: >Movement.
: - How EXACTLY did you "experience" that ?
: - Did this knowledge "come to you" intuitively ?
I'm sorry, but after revealing quite a bit of _very_ embarrasing personal
experiences on a public forum, and under my very own legal name, I find it
extraordinarily ludicrous to be cross-examined about these personal
experiences by someone using an anonymous id. Come on out and join us, if
you are willing to stand up publicly for your position like the other TM
advocates.
Joe Kellett
<deletions>
: Joe Kellett spaketh thusly unto the world:
: : : >But the
: : : >story about how my life was distorted by these false beliefs, how I managed
: : : >anyway to survive MMY's incompetent (or malicious) "spiritual" instruction,
: : : >and how I finally recovered to start leading a normal life again, all have
: : : >little to do with TM.
<commence inevitable victim-bashing...>
: Good point. You may be more right that you realize when you say that your
: problems had little to do with TM. It sounds to me, based on your many
: posts, that you have _personally_, for reasons you consider private, had a
: rough life for a decade or more, for reasons not related to TM.
You have no evidence to support that. But it is the only conclusion
permissible under TM doctrine. Blame-the-victim is the only doctrinally
acceptable response so let's get it over with...
: Your individual problems may be a good example of the way in which those
: who are having a hard time in life sometimes project their own problems
: onto those they are close to, loved ones, spouses, professors or, as now,
: teaching organizations they've been in contact with. It's not uncommon to
: hear on the news that people here and there have taken rash, harmful
: action against employers, fellow employees and even family when their
: personal problems become too much. Americans reading this know the
: incidents I'm referring to in recent years.
Gosh, I rather thought that having my spiritual Master tell me I was a
"rishi" was sufficient reason to explain just a _little_ bit of personal
difficulty. Not to mention the other stuff. But I'm a bit of a whiner I
suppose.
: You made _strong_ assumptions about this idea that you and Maharishi were
: "devas" in some past life, so strong was your belief, that, in your own
: words, your life was "distorted by these false beliefs."
Hmmm...are we ignoring the fact that I went to the Master to confirm these
"strong assumptions"?
: Again, in your own words:
: : There is a _lot_ that occurred during the time I thought I was an
: :incarnated : deva-rishi that I choose not to reveal publicly yet, or
: :possibly ever.
Yeah...so?
: Again, in your own words:
: :I don't consider that any subsequent events provide interesting anecdotal
: :evidence about TM, and therefore choose not to expose these events. I do
: :stipulate, however, that my beliefs and behavior for the next 10 years were
: :often _extremely_ bizarre.
Yeah...so?
: Obviously, you have wrestled for at least 10 years with extremely bizarre
: psychological problems, expressed, as you say, in bizarre beliefs and
: bizarre behavior. Ten years of delusions is a very long time to be
: confused. I'm glad you correctly point out that those years of delusion
: are not evidence relevant to TM.
Oops. Did I say that the 10 years of suffering weren't related to my TM
experiences? I didn't mean to imply that. Let me be more clear:
"My 10 years of suffering were a direct result of the psychoses and
dissociation induced by heavy rounding, and also a direct result of the
delusions confirmed by MMY out of his ineptitude or maliciousness. I say
'direct result' because I made _very_ poor decisions as a direct result of
the state of mind and view of reality that TM and MMY left me in. Also, the
state of mind and view of reality were themselves inherently very painful."
: In reading your posts on this subject,
: (1) you've described Maharishi's references to "rishis" in various
: lectures, and
I don't think I said that. Everyone knew what a "rishi" was. The cognizers
of the Vedas were "rishis". Our Master was a "Great Rishi". Common
knowledge.
: (2) you may have spoken to him about the topic, and
I did. I said "I am a rishi". He said "You are right". Pretty simple.
Hard to misunderstand.
: (3) one day, you approached Maharishi with some thought in mind
: about your status as a supernatural being, and
Yes. After he confirmed that I was a "rishi" I then "cognized" the deva
stuff. Not such a big feat for a rishi such as myself. I had another chance
to talk to him that night and went up to him intending to say "You and I
were devas together". As I was opening my mouth, he looked at me and said
"what you have in your mind is right". And then he walked off into his
private apartment.
: (4) you guessed that he read your mind, and guessed that he'd
: focused on one thought out of many you may have had in those
: moments, and
I didn't guess. He said "what you have in your mind is right". I believed
him. He ws the Master. It was _his_ business as to how he knew what was in
my mind.
: (5) you guessed what thought _he_ had in his mind at the time he
: spoke to you, and
Nope. I believed his spoken words.
: (6) you guessed what he meant by what he said, and
Nope. I believed his spoken words.
: (7) you privately developed a consuming belief, founded on your own
: assumptions, that you actually were a supernatural being, and
I don't think I said "consuming belief". Like a good disciple, I believed
what MMY told me. To wit, that I was a rishi, and that "what I had in my
mind was right" as I was opening my mouth to say "you and I were devas
together".
: (8) you took no great action to clarify or explore such a radical
: assumption by further conversations with Maharishi or others at
: that time, and
Have you ever tried to have a personal talk with MMY? Even in '73 or so it
was _very_ difficult. These conversations occurred after weeks of painful
waiting. You don't just "have further conversation with him" on your own
whim unless you are a Movement bigwig. The only reason I had access to him
at all was due to a very unusual circumstance whereby a member of his inner
circle got me into MMY's working sessions when they were taking place in
Santa Barbara only two hours from my home. He left town the very next day,
and these conditions were never repeated.
And after having gained the pearl of great price of having received the
personal spiritual advice of the greatest Master on the planet, you don't
then discuss your private spiritual advice with others.
Also, he showed _no_ doubt or hesitation. I felt _no_ doubt about what he
had said. I _believed_ his literal words. I thought he was the greatest
spiritual Master on the planet.
: (9) you endured at least ten years of bizarre beliefs and
: delusions which derive significantly from your silent assumptions
: about what others were thinking about your private thoughts, and
Nope. I acted on delusions confirmed by MMY's _spoken_ words.
: (10) you feel that you've been through a bad ordeal, that you
: made no mistakes that contributed to it, and
Hell, yes, I made a mistake. Didn't I say that I believed that MMY was the
greatest spiritual Master on the planet? That's enough mistake for anyone.
I fell for the "Big Con" as they called it in the movie "The Sting".
: (11) based upon Dr. Singer's psychological analysis, you and she
: have determined that some of your episodes may have been psychotic or
: severely dissociative, and that you now clearly comprehend the
: causes of your experiences and are thinking clearly, and
Like a lot of other TMers she's seen, she thinks I suffered from TM-induced
psychoses and dissociation. BTW, the "psychoses" all had to do with
imagined spiritual experiences, not with my perceptions of natural reality.
She does think that I understand the causes of my experiences.
Gosh..."does she think I'm thinking clearly"? Well, she didn't think she
needed to see me again clinically after our initial two hours. Is that
another of my famous evasions? I suppose it is. I'll ask her how clearly
she thinks I'm thinking now since you seem to respect her opinions all of a
sudden. It'll take a few days to get a message returned.
: (12) it was all the fault of persons other than yourself
I was a Grade-A fool to have ever believed one of the biggest cons on the
planet. To wit, I was a fool to have accepted MMY's "Big Con". But con men
are commonly held culpable even if their victims _were_ fools. I hold MMY
similarly culpable.
: In your own words, the causes of your above experiences and
: dissatisfaction with TM are reflected as follows:
: :Having determined that MMY deluded me, either out of his incompetence or
: :maliciousness, leaving TM was an easy thing do to. I think this would be
: :obvious to anyone not committed to TM.
: I think that your view is neither logical nor balanced.
We're even.
: I think that you
: are unfairly attributing to others responsibility for your own private
: assumptions and decisions. You do not wish to discuss those many difficult
: years, which is fine, yet, when anyone wonders about what they may reflect
: about the quality of your analysis and opinions, you object that such
: inquiry is an unfair "blame the victim game." Those years can remain
: private as far as I am concerned.
That's a relief. I thought I might be about to be forced to reveal them.
: But I hope that you'll keep an open
: mind about what caused your situation, and consider carefully how accurate
: and reasonable your current beliefs are.
I really don't see how something that occurred _after_ MMY deluded me can be
considered evidence pertaining to the act of delusion itself. Am I missing
something? Maybe I do need another visit with Singer to help me understand
your fascination with events occurring _after_ MMY told me this stuff.
Or maybe I do understand after all. I can just hear a Moonie minister
cross-examining a former Moonie:
"Ah ha! So you _admit_ you were unable to function normally after you left
the Unification Church! You delayed having children because you believed
Father Moon's statement that if you became an apostate your babies would be
stillborn! Pretty suspicious! Convicted out of your own mouth! How sure are
you about your current grip on reality? How can we trust what you say about
your interactions with Father Moon?"
The only witness a destructive cult seems to be willing to honor is a former
member who left without having incurred any personal damage. The more a
person was victimized, the more they attack the victim. It's not surprising
so many people just keep quiet about what happened to them.
Jeffrey CHANCE
>Oops. Did I say that the 10 years of suffering weren't related to my TM
>experiences? I didn't mean to imply that. Let me be more clear:
>
>"My 10 years of suffering were a direct result of the psychoses and
>dissociation induced by heavy rounding, and also a direct result of the
>delusions confirmed by MMY out of his ineptitude or maliciousness. I say
>'direct result' because I made _very_ poor decisions as a direct result of
>the state of mind and view of reality that TM and MMY left me in. Also, the
>state of mind and view of reality were themselves inherently very painful."
Joe, I'm still waiting for your reply to my queries regarding
spiritual paths and whether other spiritual paths can be considered
to have an equivalent to "heavy unstressing". There were a few other
questions as well.
Unlike the vast majority who learn the TM technique, Joe was one
of a comparatively small group of people who stuck close to the
movement, became a teacher and who took the movement as his
spiritual path and MMY as his "master". Now, most people learn
the technique for it's own benefit, and not as some part of a
spiritual path they want to pursue. But still some people DO
want to make the movement their "spiritual path". In fact I
know a few people right now who do so, and I find them to be
quite happy with their lives.
Now, I might be willing to offer some compassion to Joe in that
perhaps MMY's realization does not enable him to deal in the best
way with each person who wants to take him as a master. However,
anybody who follows a spiritual path knows that he can't always blame
his suffering on external sources. In fact, for me one of the
central characteristics of a true spiritual seeker is that he
has to have enough strength and discrimination to realize which
of his actions lead to suffering, and to steer away from those
actions. The seeker never falls into the mental trap of constantly
blaming his suffering on external sources.. because ultimately
all suffering is a product of one's mental state and one's
actions. You can't progress if you take the position that the
world is controlling your state and you have no control.
Joe claims that there was never a problem inherant with HIM,
that his "10 years of suffering" were all a consequence of
his involvement with MMY and his teaching. How did it take
you so long to figure out that maybe this was not the spir-
itual path for you? Was their nothing positive that must
have kept you on the TM "path" for such a long time? And at
any rate, your claims don't wash at all with what I have
seen. The TM teachers I know are quite happy with their
lives. And I also know many people who did TM, and were
even Siddhas, who left to join other groups but had no
bad feelings whatsoever with TM.
So my honest conclusion here is: it's looks that for
whatever reasons, you seem to have had a rough time. I'm
not convinced it was strictly MMY's or his teachings
fault. At all.
I have another question as well- how do you distinguish
between aspects of spiritual development (eg. on a
spiritual path) and psychological phenomena? Is there a
distinction? Are you criticising spirituality in general
as nothing but psychological states of mind?
>member who left without having incurred any personal damage. The more a
>person was victimized, the more they attack the victim. It's not surprising
>so many people just keep quiet about what happened to them.
Usually however, a truly dangerous or disreputable group gets
widespread exposure as being so. This hasn't happened with the
TM group. And, they have been around for nearly three decades
now, and never hesitate to widely publicize their activities.
Does not this tell us something? Why do governments permit
them to run in federal elections? Do you think they would
allow some of these other groups you mention to do so?
Still waiting for your replies...
Jeff
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Jeff Chance | Simplicity |
| Dept. of Chemistry | is an |
| McGill University, Montreal | advanced |
| MAIL: jef...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca | course. |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Doughney
Joe Kellett <jkel...@netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Hell, yes, I made a mistake. Didn't I say that I believed that MMY was the
>greatest spiritual Master on the planet? That's enough mistake for anyone.
>I fell for the "Big Con" as they called it in the movie "The Sting".
[snip]
>
>I was a Grade-A fool to have ever believed one of the biggest cons on the
>planet. To wit, I was a fool to have accepted MMY's "Big Con". But con men
>are commonly held culpable even if their victims _were_ fools. I hold MMY
>similarly culpable.
I was visiting a friend last weekend, going through a box of old
reel-to-reel audio tapes. Back in 1980 I had actually made a series
of radio programs about TM and TM-Sidhis, and I hadn't listened
to them in over ten years.
Yes. I was also a damn fool.
I was promised the ability to "see through walls" and to "fly", and I
actually believed these people were telling the truth. After all,
they were too nice to be liars.
Fortunately real life and career intervened, I didn't go to MIU and
never learned the sidhis. Eventually I noticed no particular benefit
from meditation, so I stopped practicing, and pretty much forgot about
it until reading about TM-EX, and finding this newsgroup.
Other than looking like a fool to my friends and associates at the
time, I didn't suffer any obvious negative consequences. I didn't
throw away years in service to the Movement, or throw large sums of
money at them.
I can't know for sure, though, how 10 years of 2x20 actually affected
me. In my most cynical moods I could notice that I was rather passive
during those 10 years in some ways, but it's hard to say one way or
the other.
Then there was the woman who introduced me to TM, who went from being
happy and normal to unhappy, paranoid and frightened after taking the
sidhis. I thought TM was supposed to help you be happy...
And then there are the testimonials here by Joe and Tim, which fit
very closely to the rumors and stories I heard while associated with
many who were very heavily involved with the Movement.
It all fits together quite nicely, for me; it's just a very effective
con, or as some have called it, the most effective mind control on the
planet.
And for those of you just joining us here, all the promises the
Movement makes about flying, supernormal powers, and imminent utopia
if they only get elected, er, get funding for their programs: they
said all this 10 or 15 years ago, it was a lie then, and it's still a
lie now. Nothing has changed, just the price; it's gone UP.
It's just like Psychic Friends Hotline, but for the affluent and educated.
--
Mike Doughney -- Vice-President/Operations -- Digital Express Group, Inc.
6006 Greenbelt Road, #228, Greenbelt, MD 20770-1914
301-220-2020 --- 800-969-9090 --- mi...@access.digex.net
Mike Doughney
Jeffrey CHANCE <jef...@cs.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>I have another question as well- how do you distinguish
>between aspects of spiritual development (eg. on a
>spiritual path) and psychological phenomena? Is there a
>distinction? Are you criticising spirituality in general
>as nothing but psychological states of mind?
>
I have completely rejected all forms of spirituality, largely
because of my experiences and of those near to me, with TM.
There is no way to distinguish between psychological phenomena and
those having "spiritual" causes; I consider them to be one and the
same. The Movement uses these phenomena to perpetuate its
organization and achieve its goals (security and growth for the
Movement, and a comfortable existence for those in it, being its only
goals).
Though these phenomena can be used for other purposes, there is
nothing unique about them, and to claim "legitimacy" or "illegitamacy"
of various groups has little to do with these techniques. Examples:
1) The TM Movement does not obtain fully informed consent before using
these techniques, makes misrepresentations and false promises to
attract converts, apparently injures some number of its followers, and
exists only to perpetuate itself.
2) Various religions and spiritual organizations use these techniques,
most making no secret about their religious purposes, and many warn
followers of the dangers of their path.
3) The military uses similar techniques in basic training to further its
goals.
I, of course, regard (1) as illegitamate. As an atheist I avoid (2).
Many would argue that (3) is a legitamate activity of the state.
Discussions of (2) and (3) should probably continue in a different
newsgroup...
James Cook
: I have completely rejected all forms of spirituality, largely
: because of my experiences and of those near to me, with TM.
I admire your frank honesty, at least as to this point. On the other
hand, spirituality has always been a part of my life. I have lots of
friends who don't meditate in any respect, and the issue never arises
from my side just because I'm pretty much of a live and let live, think
for yourself type of guy. About the only time these things come up for me
as a matter of discussion is when someone else happens to be interested
and mentions something. I suspect there are quite a few teachers of TM,
and meditators, who just quietly go about their lives feeling right about
things and enriched. I know some who share my perspective, and also some
who've dedicated their lives to helping Maharishi share this knowledge.
(Not that any of this pertains to your point, but I'm waiting for my
coffee to cool, and . . . . )
anyway, I got on the Internet a while back, bumped into this group,
listened in a while and felt like there was a lot of misinformation being
heatedly exchanged. Well, I enjoy the exchange of ideas and appreciate
intellectual integrity. If Tim or Joe or Mike haven't enjoyed their
exposure to TM, fine. But what makes me feel like objecting, is the
posting of really false, wholly illogical stuff. I'm more interested in
seeing quality information, and, where possible, evidence or reason to
substantiate points.
Not long ago, Tim seemed to suggest that people who learn TM have no idea
that they'll be exposed to "Eastern Metaphysics". He then proceeded to say
that when they learn TM they are put into a trance, whereupon they're
exposed to it in a surprise while their critical faculties are down (after
meditating). They supposedly had no idea of the conceptual framework
they'd be exposed to. That's ridiculous as from what I've seen.
Well, you look at the big NLP ads and see "Vedic", Science, Physics,
consciousness, and all these concepts in a very public media. That's
disclosure to my view of the movement's interests. I walked into a TM
center this week for the first time in ages just to look at it from Tim's
view, or, I should say, the view of a first time visitor. There are
books, posters, newspaper clippings on the bulletin boards, video tapes,
and other printed matter everywhere in plain view. They all have common
themes of presenting information about the Veda, about "metaphysical"
type issues between physics and the Veda, about the DC experiment, and on
and on. There was an annoucement of a lecture on the Bhagavat Gita. Then
in addition to this there are all kinds of scientific studies and main
stream magazine articles on things having to do with the medical/health
aspects of TM.
I just couldn't see how anyone who is awake could walk into a TM teaching
center for the first time and not see how wide ranging the information is,
how great the mix is of Eastern and Western knowledge/concepts all
together. From that visit, it just amazed me to think that someone as
apparently bright as Tim and Joe, could say with sobriety that people are
surprised by it all, that their religion is "challenged" without advance
"disclosure." Incredible. Given their backgrounds, such a remark is not
just a mistake, it is a reckless misrepresentation.
It appears that once I raised this point, Tim and Joe and Mike say "Well
I'm not all concerned about that . . . . there's ANOTHER thing I'm
concerned about that's wrong." And on and on.
When someone says to me, "I don't care about spirituality, or TM, or God,
or ANY of that nonsense", I generally think to myself "Well, they have no
evidence acceptable to them - apparently - and their intuition doesn't
speak to them (sensing spirituality) - so that's fine. I like them for
their other qualities and interests any way.
But when people try to pawn off prejudice, anger, disbelief, etc. as
though it were reasoned and respectable "information" as some have done
here sometimes, I'm moved to speak up and look at the logic, the
evidence, the balance, the consistency.
If you think TM is a waste of time - fine. If you think spirituality is a
waste of time - fine. If you think another spiritual tradition is more
helpful - fine. But if you want to publicly imply that I, as one of a
group of TM teachers, is willfully deceiving people, and you are without
basis in fact, and are reckless of truth in your disparaging remarks that
reflect on me, that is different. I am willing to spend some time posting
various things that more accurately reflect my own experience and my own
perspectives acquired over these twenty years.
I post things which I hope will interest some small group of people who
feel a "resonance", and which I feel may add some balance to what I
perceive as reckless, misleading remarks. This is because the innocently
curious reader deserves a more complete view, and because there are too
many people I've known, innocently teaching or just enjoying this
knowledge. As for the suggestion of people in the movement only teaching
this knowledge to live comfortbably, that is just ridiculous.
I, for example, have not received a single penny from anyone in twenty
years in relation to teaching TM. I am a businessman who does not spend a
lot of time with the organization. Yet, in all those years I've missed at
most possibly a few meditations due to severely pressing schedule
conflicts. Why? . . . because meditating provides valuable relaxation,
clarity, a spiritual "wakefulness" that I value highly. I know others in
just the same situation. Further, I know, and Joe should know, that many
TM teachers live on extremely modest means in order to enjoy their
privilege of full time teaching.
In spite of this, here I am posting frequently for several weeks here,
information that I hope will be more fair, more complete and honest about
TM and Maharishi. I've presented more information in these few weeks about
TM than I have collectively since 1971. I have absolutely nothing to gain
from all of this financially. I answer to no one but myself as to what I
post and how I express my thoughts.
So the implication that I, and my good friends who meditate and teach, are
simply out to GET something from people, rather than honestly OFFER
something, is as false and unfair as free speech gets. It is libelous and
defamatory. That statement is made with total disregard for the truth and
without reasonably trying to find the truth before speaking. It is wrong.
I hope that it does not continue.
Joe Kellett
: jkel...@netcom.com (Joe Kellett) writes:
: >Oops. Did I say that the 10 years of suffering weren't related to my TM
: >experiences? I didn't mean to imply that. Let me be more clear:
: >
: >"My 10 years of suffering were a direct result of the psychoses and
: >dissociation induced by heavy rounding, and also a direct result of the
: Joe, I'm still waiting for your reply to my queries regarding
: spiritual paths and whether other spiritual paths can be considered
: to have an equivalent to "heavy unstressing". There were a few other
: questions as well.
I seem to recall answering. Again, I think the problem is that I don't
acknowledge your standards of what a proper answer is. As a reprise, I
don't know of anything resembling "heavy unstressing" in other groups. That
doesn't mean nothing exists. I believe it is not unusual to warn of
"dangers in the spiritual path", but the only example I am personally aware
of is kundalini yoga. I hold culpable any group that knows of dangers and
doesn't warn students.
I've answered other questions in the way I want to answer them, unless I've
missed a posting completely.
: Unlike the vast majority who learn the TM technique, Joe was one
: of a comparatively small group of people who stuck close to the
: movement, became a teacher and who took the movement as his
: spiritual path and MMY as his "master".
Oops, "comparatively small"? Where are your numbers? (Is it fair for me to
play that game?)
Well, I'll answer myself. The "number" is "large enough to fill sidha
villages". Most everyone in such communities consider MMY to be their
spiritual master. Most teachers do, also.
: Now, most people learn
: the technique for it's own benefit, and not as some part of a
: spiritual path they want to pursue.
If we're talking about "most people", then I'd say "most people learn TM and
drop it completely". But I'd say the number of people who have become
fully-committed TMers, and have thereby accepted MMY as a spiritual Master,
is certainly large enough to warrant concern.
: But still some people DO
: want to make the movement their "spiritual path". In fact I
: know a few people right now who do so, and I find them to be
: quite happy with their lives.
I was "quite happy with my life" in TM for awhile myself.
: Now, I might be willing to offer some compassion to Joe in that
: perhaps MMY's realization does not enable him to deal in the best
: way with each person who wants to take him as a master.
This was really your best available argument, and you should have stuck with
it. What follows would serve to defend any destructive cult...
: However,
: anybody who follows a spiritual path knows that he can't always blame
: his suffering on external sources. In fact, for me one of the
: central characteristics of a true spiritual seeker is that he
: has to have enough strength and discrimination to realize which
: of his actions lead to suffering, and to steer away from those
: actions. The seeker never falls into the mental trap of constantly
: blaming his suffering on external sources.. because ultimately
: all suffering is a product of one's mental state and one's
: actions. You can't progress if you take the position that the
: world is controlling your state and you have no control.
Well, we've just dismissed all the cult victims in the world as whiners.
Father Moon will be pleased. Now, _he_ cannot be criticized for what
happens to people in the Moonies. After all, all suffering is a product of
their mental state and their actions. Good stuff.
What you are saying is "it is unimportant to warn people of incompetent or
malicious spiritual teachers". Is this what you mean? Pretty extreme, I
think. Do you mean that _nothing_ MMY could _conceivably_ do to a TMer
would merit censure simply because MMY has wrapped himself in a spiritual
mantle? I think you may be in pretty deep here.
: Joe claims that there was never a problem inherant with HIM,
: that his "10 years of suffering" were all a consequence of
: his involvement with MMY and his teaching.
Let's see, "never a problem inherant with him"...
Take the story of someone who joins a Bible cult. The person is diabetic.
He comes to believe that the cult leader is a charismatic healer. The
leader works the follower into a frenzy of dedication, wherein the follower
vows before the group to give up his insulin. The follower does indeed give
up his insulin and he sickens. They pray over him in relays. He dies.
They continue to pray because the leader promises a resurrection, which
never happens." (True story from _Combatting Cult Mind Control_).
Now let's make a hypothetical ending to the story. Imagine the dead
person's mother confronting the cult leader. She says "my son died because
of you". He says, "Oh, I suppose you claim that there was never a problem
with your _son_, eh? You blame it all on _me_, eh? A true spiritual seeker
never blames external sources, you obviously don't understand that. All
suffering was due to your son's mental state and his actions."
Are you impressed with the cult leader's hypothetical response? If not, why
not? Should the mother warn other people about the group? If not, why not?
: How did it take
: you so long to figure out that maybe this was not the spir-
: itual path for you?
Because I had been so effectively duped.
: Was their nothing positive that must
: have kept you on the TM "path" for such a long time?
There was a false appearance of positivity.
: And at
: any rate, your claims don't wash at all with what I have
: seen. The TM teachers I know are quite happy with their
: lives. And I also know many people who did TM, and were
: even Siddhas, who left to join other groups but had no
: bad feelings whatsoever with TM.
Is this proof that _no one_ has problems with TM?
: So my honest conclusion here is: it's looks that for
: whatever reasons, you seem to have had a rough time. I'm
: not convinced it was strictly MMY's or his teachings
: fault. At all.
This is a pure red herring response. You have not addressed any of the
issues I've raised. Instead you say that a true spiritual seeker will not
complain _whatever_ the spiritual leader does to him. You should be
nominated for the cult-defenders hall of fame for that one.
Then you say "I've known happy TMers, even happy ex-TMers". Then you jump
to the non sequitur conclusion this means that what I went through couldn't
be MMY's fault. The lack of intellectual rigor in this flow of "logic" is
astounding, considering the mechanical precision you demand of me in my own
arguments against TM. It is a pure "believer's" kneejerk.
: I have another question as well- how do you distinguish
: between aspects of spiritual development (eg. on a
: spiritual path) and psychological phenomena? Is there a
: distinction? Are you criticising spirituality in general
: as nothing but psychological states of mind?
I've answered this rather completely already, possibly in another thread,
probably more than once.
: >member who left without having incurred any personal damage. The more a
: >person was victimized, the more they attack the victim. It's not surprising
: >so many people just keep quiet about what happened to them.
: Usually however, a truly dangerous or disreputable group gets
: widespread exposure as being so.
Well, I don't at all accept the "usually". But even if "usually" were true,
it is a statistical statement that doesn't help us in the examination of a
particular group. For example, people don't "usually" have cancer, yet
cancer exists.
: This hasn't happened with the
: TM group. And, they have been around for nearly three decades
: now, and never hesitate to widely publicize their activities.
: Does not this tell us something?
It tells us that they are particularly effective at deception, and are adept
at evading responsibility for their actions. Destructive cults tend not to
gain recognition as such unless they do things such as sell flowers in
airports, violate someone's civil liberties, or violate some legal statute.
: Why do governments permit
: them to run in federal elections?
I think you must have not been paying attention in Civics. There is nothing
preventing a destructive cult from running candidates.
: Do you think they would
: allow some of these other groups you mention to do so?
The Moonies run a prominent newspaper in Washington D.C.. On what basis do
you think the government would prohibit the Moonies from running candidates?
The Consititutional implications are fascinating.
Under current law, it's _completely_ legal to operate a cult per se. It's
considered a right protected by Constitutional guarantees of free speech.
Koresh didn't get in trouble for running a cult, but for violations of gun
laws.
: Still waiting for your replies...
Naaah....
I'm never completely caught up, but I think that the chronic "waiting"
problem is caused by the fact that you are applying a double standard
whereby numeric scientific precision is required of me, but vague thought
association masquerading as "logic" is sufficient for you since all you
really seem to want to do is to make ad hominem attacks and trail red
herrings. Therefore none of my replies are adequate, and you are always
"waiting".
I don't think I'm going to play that game any more. As I've said, my concern
is that my position becomes clear to those who are not fully committed to
TM. I think they probably understand my experiences and opinions enough to
decide how much credence they want to give to them. I'm here to explain my
position, not to convince people that I am right. If someone uncommitted to
TM is confused about something I've said, a private note would be
appreciated. And if I've missed a question completely, anyone can please
let me know what it was.
Joe Kellett
<deletions>
: anyway, I got on the Internet a while back, bumped into this group,
: listened in a while and felt like there was a lot of misinformation being
: heatedly exchanged. Well, I enjoy the exchange of ideas and appreciate
: intellectual integrity. If Tim or Joe or Mike haven't enjoyed their
: exposure to TM, fine.
To call my experiences "not enjoying TM" is rather a misrepresentation, I
think. This is what I call a "red herring": quoting something I didn't say
and then showing how absurd or irrelevant the non-statement is.
: But what makes me feel like objecting, is the
: posting of really false, wholly illogical stuff.
No lapses in my logic have been demonstrated, only violations of TM doctrine
and world-view. I would appreciate anyone who is not a committed TMer
pointing out any logical lapses I have committed, so that I may correct or
retract such statements.
: I'm more interested in
: seeing quality information, and, where possible, evidence or reason to
: substantiate points.
But your unstated assumption is "TM doctrine is true, therefore all
information, evidence, or reason must be judged according to the TM
standard".
: Not long ago, Tim seemed to suggest that people who learn TM have no idea
: that they'll be exposed to "Eastern Metaphysics". He then proceeded to say
: that when they learn TM they are put into a trance, whereupon they're
: exposed to it in a surprise while their critical faculties are down (after
: meditating). They supposedly had no idea of the conceptual framework
: they'd be exposed to. That's ridiculous as from what I've seen.
Not so ridiculous. "Trance induction" is a real thing according to most
psychologists. It is quite reasonable to classify a technique of repeating
a meaningless sound with eyes closed as a "trance induction technique". It
is mainstream psychological theory that many people have significantly
enhanced suggestibility immediately after a trance, especially lowered
suggestibility towards those who led them into the trance state. TM
doctrine is not clearly revealed until people are in this post-trance
suggestible state. Ergo, TM doctrine is only taught when the student is
most suggestible.
None of this is so very ridiculous. What _is_ ridiculous is that the only
pro-TM answer to this theory has been to call it "ridiculous".
: Well, you look at the big NLP ads and see "Vedic", Science, Physics,
: consciousness, and all these concepts in a very public media. That's
: disclosure to my view of the movement's interests. I walked into a TM
: center this week for the first time in ages just to look at it from Tim's
<more descriptions of TM propaganda deleted>
: apparently bright as Tim and Joe, could say with sobriety that people are
: surprised by it all, that their religion is "challenged" without advance
: "disclosure." Incredible. Given their backgrounds, such a remark is not
: just a mistake, it is a reckless misrepresentation.
Again, these are indeed "deceptive" because they say "this is not religion
or metaphysics, this is _science_!" Only at the TTC level do you learn that
MMY considers science as just a way to sell the spiritual program.
: It appears that once I raised this point, Tim and Joe and Mike say "Well
: I'm not all concerned about that . . . . there's ANOTHER thing I'm
: concerned about that's wrong." And on and on.
Dang, and I thought _I_ was the one being evaded. Just shows you how wrong
you can be. Well, I don't expect that we'll agree on this. I submit the
question to the judgement of each reader of the newsgroup.
<deletions>
: If you think TM is a waste of time - fine. If you think spirituality is a
: waste of time - fine. If you think another spiritual tradition is more
: helpful - fine. But if you want to publicly imply that I, as one of a
: group of TM teachers, is willfully deceiving people,
As a TM teacher, I and all of my friends "deceived people" but we didn't
think of it as deception. We thought it would be _more_ deceiving to tell
the person the literal truth since they would probably misunderstand it. We
thought that this would _generate_ ignorance rather than relieving it, thus
possibly leading to the person missing the greatest spiritual opportunity on
the planet. That is how we justified our partial revelations, evasions, and
and distractions. We had _no_ motive of personal gain. Our "deception" was
entirely based on humanitarian concern and compassion.
BTW, this attitude is typical of most recruiters in destructive spiritual
groups. This is the same rationalization used by Moonie recruiters, most of
whom are also "good people". The former head of the Unification Church in
Texas is now a cult-recovery psychologist and is a new friend of mine. As a
Moonie he was a "good person" trying sincerely to do what was best for
people.
_All_ of the committed TMers I personally knew were good and sincere people
who were trying to help people in the best way they knew how.
Unfortunately, these good people were serving a spiritual system that was
unworthy of "good people". Again, this is the usual thing in destructive
spiritual groups.
<deletions>
: knowledge. As for the suggestion of people in the movement only teaching
: this knowledge to live comfortbably, that is just ridiculous.
I don't personally suspect anyone of having this motive. I don't even
accuse MMY of it. Perhaps, in his case, he was just unable to deal with
power. I think the Movement collects money for the power it brings (to do
"good" of course) rather than for the luxury it brings.
: I, for example, have not received a single penny from anyone in twenty
: years in relation to teaching TM. I am a businessman who does not spend a
: lot of time with the organization. Yet, in all those years I've missed at
: most possibly a few meditations due to severely pressing schedule
: conflicts. Why? . . . because meditating provides valuable relaxation,
: clarity, a spiritual "wakefulness" that I value highly. I know others in
: just the same situation. Further, I know, and Joe should know, that many
: TM teachers live on extremely modest means in order to enjoy their
: privilege of full time teaching.
You are confusing me with someone else. I _was_ a teacher, remember? I
absolutely agree that teaching TM full-time is the sure path to poverty.
<deletions>
: So the implication that I, and my good friends who meditate and teach, are
: simply out to GET something from people, rather than honestly OFFER
: something, is as false and unfair as free speech gets. It is libelous and
: defamatory. That statement is made with total disregard for the truth and
: without reasonably trying to find the truth before speaking. It is wrong.
It was also never said by me. Not unusual, as a lot of criticism is made on
this newsgroup of things I never said.
TM advocates are almost universally "good people" who honestly don't
understand that they are promoting a destructive spiritual system. It's not
the first time nor the last time that good people will be lured into
supporting something destructive.
Jeffrey CHANCE
>Jeffrey CHANCE (jef...@cs.mcgill.ca) wrote:
>
>: Unlike the vast majority who learn the TM technique, Joe was one
>: of a comparatively small group of people who stuck close to the
>: movement, became a teacher and who took the movement as his
>: spiritual path and MMY as his "master".
>
>Oops, "comparatively small"? Where are your numbers? (Is it fair for me to
>play that game?)
Yes- comparaitively small. I think it's safe to assume that the number
of people who become a teacher or otherwise associate closely with the
TM movement as their spiritual path, vs those that just learn the
technique and practice on their own, is indeed comparatively small.
I just wanted to make it clear that most people learn TM simply for
the meditation technique.
>: However,
>: anybody who follows a spiritual path knows that he can't always blame
>: his suffering on external sources. In fact, for me one of the
>: central characteristics of a true spiritual seeker is that he
>: has to have enough strength and discrimination to realize which
>: of his actions lead to suffering, and to steer away from those
>: actions. The seeker never falls into the mental trap of constantly
>: blaming his suffering on external sources.. because ultimately
>: all suffering is a product of one's mental state and one's
>: actions. You can't progress if you take the position that the
>: world is controlling your state and you have no control.
>
>Well, we've just dismissed all the cult victims in the world as whiners.
>Father Moon will be pleased. Now, _he_ cannot be criticized for what
>happens to people in the Moonies. After all, all suffering is a product of
>their mental state and their actions. Good stuff.
Oops. Well I'm obviously not as sharp as I should be, debating
with you. I was wrong saying "all suffering" is one's fault...
I tried to convey what I was intending to earlier when I used
"constantly blaming" external sources. Anyways, to clarify,
what I was criticizing was the attitude where a person takes
no responsibility for his own actions and decisions, and
always blames everything that happens to him on other people,
events etc. I think you would probably agree with me on that.
I have stated earlier that I DO believe there are certain
groups around which people should be warned about. Your story
about the diabetic is an obvious example. In fact just last
year in Quebec we had a couple of incidents quite similar to
this story, where people took medical advice from supposed
spiritual guides, and died.
Having cleared this up, I thank you for your "hall of fame"
nomination, but feel I must decline..
Getting back to the start of this, it seems your attitude has
always been that nothing YOU ever did, no decision you ever
took, was ever at fault in causing your "suffering". Are you
saying you are not responible for your decision to not leave
TM sooner rather than later?
Of course, you were so "effectively duped" during these years.
So effectively duped that you even felt you were happy with
your life as a TM teacher. Is James, or Rango, being duped
right now because they also are happy with their TM practice
and their association with the movement? Or how about all
the siddhas right now who number enough to fill a small
siddha village? The point is, your situation isn't even
minutely representative of the majority. I am not claiming
you haven't suffered somehow (have you told us how you
suffered?). I am not claiming that MMY cannot be blamed
for anything. I am saying that if you have all these
people happily practicing TM and the Siddhis, that maybe
your claim that "I suffered and it is all the movement's
fault" needs a closer examination.
Jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------
| Jeff Chance | Be true to yourself: |
| Dept. of Chemistry | The world will |
| McGill University, Montreal | derive immeasurable |
| MAIL: jef...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca | benefit from you |
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Doughney
>
>: I, for example, have not received a single penny from anyone in twenty
>: years in relation to teaching TM.
[snip]
>: Further, I know, and Joe should know, that many
>: TM teachers live on extremely modest means in order to enjoy their
>: privilege of full time teaching.
[snip]
>
>: So the implication that I, and my good friends who meditate and teach, are
>: simply out to GET something from people, rather than honestly OFFER
>: something, is as false and unfair as free speech gets. It is libelous and
>: defamatory. That statement is made with total disregard for the truth and
>: without reasonably trying to find the truth before speaking. It is wrong.
>
>It was also never said by me. Not unusual, as a lot of criticism is made on
>this newsgroup of things I never said.
>
It was also not said by me. The sentence which I used in
starting this thread, and which James has chosen not to quote,
is:
>>> ... The Movement uses these phenomena to perpetuate its
>>> organization and achieve its goals (security and growth for the
>>> Movement, and a comfortable existence for those in it, being its only
>>> goals).
These goals being no different than that of any other business.
By comfortable I mean not having to worry about where their next meal
is coming from, having clothes to wear and reasonable living
conditions. Whether they're living on "extremely modest means" or
great wealth makes no difference, they're not living on the street,
they've got a full time job doing what they've been convinced is
important, vital work.
The Movement's goals do not include generating "heaven on earth" or
even providing personal benefits. It is a system which has convinced
large numbers of people to teach its program, for no little or no pay.
Why? They've all been told that teaching others will speed their
own "evolution". Of course, this large unpaid sales force is sending
all the initiation fees directly back to the Movement, with little or
no overhead. So its real estate division can then go build a theme
park in Canada, and its political arm can then go field candidates and
insure the Movement's power perpetually by combining it with
governmental power.
Your claim that you and other teachers make no money is yet another
red herring. Heck, I was an unpaid part-time PR flack for the local
center on and off for years, thinking I was doing my part to bring
about the "full sun of the Age of Enligtenment;" duped, just as
completely and effectively as you are.
James Cook
Mike Doughney spaketh thusly unto the world:
snip
: I can't know for sure, though, how 10 years of 2x20 actually affected
: me. In my most cynical moods I could notice that I was rather passive
: during those 10 years in some ways, but it's hard to say one way or
: the other.
snip
: It all fits together quite nicely, for me; it's just a very effective
: con, or as some have called it, the most effective mind control on the
: planet.
snip
: And for those of you just joining us here, all the promises the
: Movement makes about flying, supernormal powers, and imminent utopia
: if they only get elected, er, get funding for their programs: they
: said all this 10 or 15 years ago, it was a lie then, and it's still a
: lie now. Nothing has changed, just the price; it's gone UP.
--------------------
I can snip out other copies of your posts, Mike, and Joe, and come up
with more stuff like the above. In it, expressly and by innuendo, you
both are saying that Maharishi is a con man, that the teacher who teach
TM are con men. A reasonable person would likely interpret this to mean
that those people are committing fraud and/or violating the law. This is
a very short jump, if at all, from libel, defamation. I am referring to
your remarks to the effect that all teachers are con men and therefore,
I, by implication, am one too.
Now is that the public assertion you wish to make and be responsible for?
Are you indicating that I'm a con man - Mike, Tim, Joe? Are you
suggesting that I'm a criminal? Are you suggesting that I'm engaging in
active fraud against members of the public? If this is what you're
saying, say it clearly if you are willing to be responsible for those
remarks. If it is not, act like gentlemen and speak more specificly.
James Cook
: The Movement's goals do not include generating "heaven on earth" or
: even providing personal benefits.
Their stated goals have included contributing to generation of "heaven on
earth". Your above statement is just your own, personal re-interpretation
of what they've stated their goals to be. You're masquerading your
opinion around as fact.
It is a system which has convinced
: large numbers of people to teach its program, for no little or no pay.
: Why? They've all been told that teaching others will speed their
: own "evolution".
A widely held belief among most people as that teachers learn their
subject more deeply when teaching others . . . the teacher benefits by
teaching. Of course their evolution may be speeded. They like what they
do and chose to do so.
Of course, this large unpaid sales force is sending
: all the initiation fees directly back to the Movement, with little or
: no overhead.
Wrong again. There is a division initiation fees so that both the local
teaching centers and the national organization can fund the activities
they respectively undertake. ONE of the activities at a national level
is acquiring facilities for teaching and other affairs they deem
appropriate. What educational organizations DO NOT undertake varieties of
national programs, including real estate matters?
: Your claim that you and other teachers make no money is yet another
: red herring. Heck, I was an unpaid part-time PR flack for the local
: center on and off for years, thinking I was doing my part to bring
: about the "full sun of the Age of Enligtenment;" duped, just as
: completely and effectively as you are.
By saying its a red herring, are you claiming I have in fact received
money in ANY activity associated with TM - when I just stated that I
didn't?
What is the nature of the red herring here other than you having fun
posting all this electronic noise?
Mike Doughney
>
>I can snip out other copies of your posts, Mike, and Joe, and come up
>with more stuff like the above. In it, expressly and by innuendo, you
>both are saying that Maharishi is a con man,
Yes. That is exactly correct. To catagorize Maharishi with such
noted con artists like Sun Myung Moon, L. Ron Hubbard and Lyndon
LaRouche would be quite appropriate, and MMY is called a con man and
worse by others all the time. Read the FAQ for alt.atheism; David
Koresh is even included in the list right alongside MMY!
It does NOT follow that:
> that the teacher who teach TM are con men.
It would be more accurate to assert that the teachers have also been
conned.
>A reasonable person would likely interpret this to mean
>that those people are committing fraud and/or violating the law.
There has been no allegation made anywhere in this newsgroup that I
know of that any laws are being violated by the Movement or anyone
involved with it.
Promoting a religious or spiritual system under the guise of science
is a con of a different sort. It's not in violation of any law, as
running a cult is not, in and of itself, illegal.
Others on this newsgroup and I have been presenting what we believe
to be the true nature and goals of the TM movement. There has been
no assertion that any practices of the Movement are illegal or
fraudulent, only that the spiritual and scientific practices of the
organization as a whole are unethical and deceptive.
>This is
>a very short jump, if at all, from libel, defamation. I am referring to
>your remarks to the effect that all teachers are con men and therefore,
>I, by implication, am one too.
>
>Now is that the public assertion you wish to make and be responsible
>for?
I have made no remark to the effect that all teachers are con men.
I have been archiving this group since October 16; a case-insensitive
search for the string "con " reveals this paragraph written by Joe
Kellett and subsequently quoted by me:
>>>I was a Grade-A fool to have ever believed one of the biggest cons on the
>>>planet. To wit, I was a fool to have accepted MMY's "Big Con". But con men
>>>are commonly held culpable even if their victims _were_ fools. I hold MMY
>>>similarly culpable.
Only MMY, a public figure, has been called a "con man" in this
newsgroup. Perhaps you should stop taking everything we say about MMY
personally.
>Are you indicating that I'm a con man - Mike, Tim, Joe? Are you
>suggesting that I'm a criminal? Are you suggesting that I'm engaging in
>active fraud against members of the public? If this is what you're
>saying, say it clearly if you are willing to be responsible for those
>remarks. If it is not, act like gentlemen and speak more specificly.
Once again, I have made no claim of fraud by you. I have been quite
specific in my criticism, and I would really appreciate it if you
avoided putting words in my mouth. Again.
I should also mention here that the threat of litigation to silence
critics is a common tactic used by other cults, such as the Church of
Scientology.
You really are a lawyer in real life, aren't you?
Mike Doughney
>
>
>: all the initiation fees directly back to the Movement, with little or
>: no overhead.
>
>Wrong again. There is a division initiation fees so that both the local
>teaching centers and the national organization can fund the activities
>they respectively undertake. ONE of the activities at a national level
>is acquiring facilities for teaching and other affairs they deem
>appropriate. What educational organizations DO NOT undertake varieties of
>national programs, including real estate matters?
>
As I said, the teaching fees go directly back into the Movement.
Whether it's the local teaching center or the national organization,
it's still the Movement; I am using that term as it is commonly used
to describe the entire structure of local, national and international
units.
I also question whether a theme park is an appropriate
business for an outfit that claims to be a non-profit
educational organization to get into.
>: Your claim that you and other teachers make no money is yet another
>: red herring. Heck, I was an unpaid part-time PR flack for the local
>: center on and off for years, thinking I was doing my part to bring
>: about the "full sun of the Age of Enligtenment;" duped, just as
>: completely and effectively as you are.
>
>
>By saying its a red herring, are you claiming I have in fact received
>money in ANY activity associated with TM - when I just stated that I
>didn't?
Whether you received one penny or not from the Movement is irrelevant
to the original discussion, which centered on the deceptive claims and
destructive results of the spiritual system promoted as TM.
James Cook
: >A reasonable person would likely interpret this to mean
: >that those people are committing fraud and/or violating the law.
: There has been no allegation made anywhere in this newsgroup that I
: know of that any laws are being violated by the Movement or anyone
: involved with it.
: Promoting a religious or spiritual system under the guise of science
: is a con of a different sort. It's not in violation of any law, as
: running a cult is not, in and of itself, illegal.
You are on thinner ice, sir, then you may realize. Libel per se and
defamation claims are derived from direct allegations OR innuendo that
either criminal or civil (non-criminal) fraud has been perpetrated by
someone. Combine that with the recklessly broad, categorical statements that
teacher are pertpetrating fraud on the public in the course of teaching
TM, and you necessarily include me as part of that group subjected to such
innuendo. If you don't want to be responsible for innuendo of this type -
back off. I've been archinving it too - for longer than you.
I've advised you both politely and directly. All of you. If you're going
to speak as you have been, expect to be responsible for it.
David Swarbrick
>Mike Doughney spaketh thusly unto the world:
>
>: >A reasonable person would likely interpret this to mean
>: >that those people are committing fraud and/or violating the law.
>
>: There has been no allegation made anywhere in this newsgroup that I
>: know of that any laws are being violated by the Movement or anyone
>: involved with it.
>
>: Promoting a religious or spiritual system under the guise of science
>: is a con of a different sort. It's not in violation of any law, as
>: running a cult is not, in and of itself, illegal.
>
>You are on thinner ice, sir, then you may realize. Libel per se and
>defamation claims are derived from direct allegations OR innuendo that
>either criminal or civil (non-criminal) fraud has been perpetrated by
>someone. Combine that with the recklessly broad, categorical statements that
>teacher are pertpetrating fraud on the public in the course of teaching
>TM, and you necessarily include me as part of that group subjected to such
>innuendo. If you don't want to be responsible for innuendo of this type -
>back off. I've been archinving it too - for longer than you.
I am as tired of the nonsense promulgated by Mr Doughney as much as you
are. I think however that discussion of legal remedies are unlikely
to be helpful to anyone. The biggest simplest and most obvious
disproof of their claims is simply the readiness to cross swords with
them here.
They claim indoctrination of different sorts. Any objective person
reading this group (yes, I know there will not be many, and I am not one)
will see pro-TMers consistently open to question, making intelligent
choices between different parts of MMYs teaching. It is not the
mark of a group of people suffering post (something or other - well
antything I can think of actually ) suggestibility. It is the mark of
people whose minds have been sharpened and enlivened and quite ready to
think clearly about what they are being told.
On the other hand we see people who give every appearance of having
been fanatics when they were TMers, and remain just as much fanatics now.
They saw the light and were blinded. They turned away, saw the light again
and were blinded again.
David
>
>I've advised you both politely and directly. All of you. If you're going
>to speak as you have been, expect to be responsible for it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>James Cook Internet: jc...@netcom.com
>San Francisco Bay, Calififornia Compuserve: 76520,2727
>
>
>
>
--
David Swarbrick | Just Mooting UK Law BBS
Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG | +44 (0)484 401139 (24 hrs <=v.32bis)
| sw...@swarb.demon.co.uk
Rango Keshavan
>
>On the other hand we see people who give every appearance of having
>been fanatics when they were TMers, and remain just as much fanatics now.
>They saw the light and were blinded. They turned away, saw the light again
>and were blinded again.
>
fanatics. Both Tim and Joe have "revealed" to us that they were
fanatics for TM. Now they are certainly fanatically against it. They
have the gall to accuse us constantly of all sorts of ridiculous things,
while they themselves are constantly insulting us and our intelligence
with just about every paragraph they have to offer. Yet, not once are
they willing to offer us concrete examples of what they underwent, only
tidbits which suit their fanatic desire to undermine this net and TM in
general. I still get a feeling they are hiding something, especially
Tim and Joe. There is more than meets the eye here. Accuse me of
whatever bullshit nonsense you want to, but the fact is that you have
not told all of your experiences, which is all you have for a basis for
your claims against TM, and I for one get the distinct feeling that you
folks have some hidden agenda yourselves and are just projecting that on
us for your own twisted needs.
Not only that, they once accused me of Western-bashing, but I say that they
are the ones guilty of Hindu-bashing in the way that they are using the term
Hindu and Hinduism to cannote something most negative and base. That is
what I, as a Hindu, gather from much of the way they use the terms Hindu
and Hinduism. Too me, it is really sickening and disgusting.
103 posts after Thanksgiving vaca, and the vast majority of them either
attacks or defenses. What a shame. What a waste of such a fine
resource. All because 2 or 3 people's needs to muck up something which
could be very usefull for many others. (Oh, I know, it's usefull for
your deranged purposes).
Rango
Tim Antonsen
[ snippings ... ]
: I can snip out other copies of your posts, Mike, and Joe, and come up
: with more stuff like the above. In it, expressly and by innuendo, you
: both are saying that Maharishi is a con man, that the teacher who teach
: TM are con men. A reasonable person would likely interpret this to mean
: that those people are committing fraud and/or violating the law. This is
: a very short jump, if at all, from libel, defamation. I am referring to
: your remarks to the effect that all teachers are con men and therefore,
: I, by implication, am one too.
: Now is that the public assertion you wish to make and be responsible for?
: Are you indicating that I'm a con man - Mike, Tim, Joe? Are you
: suggesting that I'm a criminal? Are you suggesting that I'm engaging in
: active fraud against members of the public? If this is what you're
: saying, say it clearly if you are willing to be responsible for those
: remarks. If it is not, act like gentlemen and speak more specificly.
James is beginning to sound like a Scientologist, tossing around thinly
veiled threats of legal action.
This new tactic says more to me than anything he has said before.
--Tim
Rango Keshavan
>James is beginning to sound like a Scientologist, tossing around thinly
>veiled threats of legal action.
>
>This new tactic says more to me than anything he has said before.
What does it say, Tim? That James is a Scientologist in disguise here
on the TM net? As James once said, be clear!
Rango
Joe Kellett
: James Cook (jc...@netcom.com) wrote:
: [ snippings ... ]
Yes, you beat me to the punch Tim. I was also about to remind Jim that he
was a TMer and not a Scientologist. The Scientology "fair game" doctrine,
whereby any tactic is considered suitable for the suppression of critics,
has so far been eschewed by the Movement. Of course, things could change.
But I think MMY has indeed been shrewd to just "speak the sweet [sic] truth"
and ignore critics. Lawsuits just generate unpleasant publicity. I never
said MMY was dumb. Au contrare, MMY is an unmitigated genius, although
perhaps a raving genius.
I called Pat Ryan and talked to him about this threat. If he can figure out
how to use an "nn" newsreader and whatever editor Delphi gives him, he may
be joining us soon. But here is a sketch of his reaction:
**********************************************************************
[CAVEAT: Neither Pat nor I are lawyers. At best, the following might
constitute matter for discussion with a lawyer if you take Jim's threat
seriously.]
***********************************************************************
-Pat has been criticizing TM for years. They have never mentioned
suit. He thinks it is still Movement policy to be "above all of this".
-The Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled in "Malnak vs. Yogi"
that TM was a religion. This ruling has the status of "case law".
-In "Kropinsky vs. Yogi", a trial court awarded $138,000 to Kropinksy for
the Movement's "fraud and negligence". The appeals court in this case
returned the case for a new trial because of technical objections to the
trial judge's instructions to the jury regarding the role of expert
witnesses. Also, in DC, "negligence" could only legally occur during a
physical act. The Movement settled out of court before a new trial
occurred. I think the moral of this story is the Movement knows that fraud
and negligence are provable to a jury.
-If a nuisance suit is filed against a TM critic, a judge can be asked to
throw the case out before trial on a "summary judgement". The judge would
probably decide that the plaintiff is unlikely to be able to prove that TM
is not a fraud (as is his burden I think), since TM claims not to be a
religion but case law says it is. Other arguments such as presented in
Kropinsky vs. Yogi can show the judge that the plaintiff is unlikely to
prove that a charge of "fraud" against TM is slanderous to anyone.
-(I _think_ Pat was saying this:) Since TM is a religion, criticising it is
protected by freedom of religion as _well_ as your freedom of speech.
-The Philly Circuit Court also ruled that TM teachers are agents (in the
legal sense) of the Movement. This puts any individual teacher on tenuous
legal ground trying to sue individually over criticisms of the organization
of which he is agent.
-MMY always runs from court appearances by leaving the country during trials
because he does not want to testify under oath. There is thus the chance of
a snowball that any suit will be filed personally by MMY about statements
made about him.
-The Movement would probably pull the choke-chain on any TM teacher trying
this kind of stunt (my paraphrase). (Of course, there could always be loose
cannons rolling around who care more about satisfying their own pride and
anger than about preserving the image of the Holy Tradition.)
I personally question whether an individual can claim libel and slander over
assertions made about an organization. I am trying to get in touch with an
anti-cult law specialist for more specifics. Counter-suits for harassment
might also be an option, I would think.
I also question what damages Jim could claim, since none of us critics even
know who the hell he is. Certainly nothing said here can be impacting his
personal life. Suppression of criticism and revenge are his only visible
motives.
For me, with my background, an appearance on Oprah is also an option. "TM
Rishi-Devas -- on the next Oprah." Maybe Pat could get me on, with his
recent Today show exposure as a cult expert. Having an agent of the
Movement suing me would add spice. Damn, and me with no book to sell. :-)
*****************************************************************************
I WOULD PERSONALLY BE WARY OF JIM'S INVITATION TO 'ACT LIKE A GENTLEMAN AND
SPEAK MORE SPECIFICALLY'. HE MAY 'ACT LIKE A GENTLEMAN' AND SUE YOU IF YOU
MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT HIM INDIVIDUALLY. PAT ALWAYS STICKS TO MAKING
STATEMENTS ABOUT MMY, AND MMY'S MOVEMENT.
******************************************************************************
I personally feel quite safe talking about MMY and the Movement in general
terms. At worst, I'd expect to pay fees to get a summary judgement -- at
best I might win a counter-suit and sell a book. But maybe I'd better get
cracking on that book, as I don't want to get caught flat-footed...
[End of legal speculations that you should talk to a lawyer about if you
want a professional opinion. If your lawyer disagrees, I'll return every
penny you paid for this information.]
BTW, I'm thinking of making this a periodic posting on amt since there is a
legal shark in the waters. I think every two weeks would keep it on most
people's systems to warn newbies.
James Cook
My comments pertain solely to me as an individual, and to remarks
directed as such.
I value my reputation and integrity, and spoke out of my interest in
these qualities of life.
Knowing the law the endeavors to protect these rights for me and thousands
of other individuals, I expressed my concern clearly. There is nothing
more or less to it than that.
James Cook
: Yes, you beat me to the punch Tim. I was also about to remind Jim that he
: was a TMer and not a Scientologist.
Above all, I am an individual with my own life to live, my own valued
interests and reputation. My practice and enjoyment of TM is only one
aspect of my private life. I believe that if you were to treat people as
thinking individuals with valued private lives and judgment, it would be
better.
James Cook
James Cook
: -Pat has been criticizing TM for years. They have never mentioned
: suit. He thinks it is still Movement policy to be "above all of this".
Apparently, you just don't appreciate that I'm a private individual who,
as such, makes personal decisions that seem sensible and just. I believe
this is true for most people who include meditation as part of their lives.
: Also, in DC, "negligence" could only legally occur during a
: physical act.
While I haven't seen the case or applicable staututes, if a court decided
that negligence theory is only applicable in instances of some physical
act, and that such did not exist in the subject case, then your following
impression that negligence is "provable" is an inconsistent guess.
Legal decisions in one judicial district often do not reflect what a
statute or court may indicate in a different district geographically.
Its a very technical, diverse aggregate of rules and procedure which make
up law in all the different judicial districts.
: The Movement settled out of court before a new trial
: occurred. I think the moral of this story is the Movement knows that fraud
: and negligence are provable to a jury.
First, your above remark indicated that negligence apparently requires
certain physical acts in that judicial district, hence its not an
applicable theory and, if so, was "thrown out" on summary judgment.
Settlements occur for many reasons in trials, and do not necessarily mean
that one or the other side was guaranteed of a certain outcome. In
California, for example, approximately 90% of all civil cases filed in
court do NOT go to trial and/or retrial. Personal considerations,
unjustified cost, inconvenience to one or both parties, a changed rule of
evidence in that judicial district, a new appellate decision which may
change the outcome, and many other factors are just some of the reasons
that trials start and stop. I realize you'd like to surmise what the
outcome would be for obvious reasons. However, anyone really knowledgeable
about the legal environment and ever-changing nature of law and civil
procedure would not make such a hasty inference.
: -The Philly Circuit Court also ruled that TM teachers are agents (in the
: legal sense) of the Movement. This puts any individual teacher on tenuous
: legal ground trying to sue individually over criticisms of the organization
: of which he is agent.
Not at all. This and your other comments reflect lots of (continuing)
fanciful thinking and truth-stretching, and little resemblance to reality.
The major relevance of the legal issue of whether someone is an agent for
an organization (corporation, partnership, or whoever), is to decide
whether, for example, the agent had authority to speak for an
organization, whether the acts of the agent (if wrong) pass legal
liability for the agent's acts back to his "principal." The entire class
of "agency-issues" primarily have to do with lawsuits against the agent or
principal. There is nothing I know of in law that restricts a person's
right to remedies at law because he is also an agent for one or more
organizations, except, perhaps, in special cases of governmental
employees.
This is just one of many situations, IMHO, where you want to
appear to know more than you in fact do, and where you say things mostly
for effect. This type of thing does a real injustice to people.
: I personally question whether an individual can claim libel and slander over
: assertions made about an organization.
Libel and slander are generally available to individuals as a means of
prohibiting, or otherwise justly responding to, communications injurious
to personal reputation. This is the essence of it. As I indicated, I am
concerned with communications that are fair to the reputations of
individuals worldwide, including myself - as an individual.
: I also question what damages Jim could claim, since none of us critics even
: know who the hell he is. Certainly nothing said here can be impacting his
: personal life. Suppression of criticism and revenge are his only visible
: motives.
Generally, if circumstances really justify an action in libel, it arises
from "published" communications which are libelous. "Published" means
communicated in a "public forum" in general terms. It needn't be in a
certain locality, medium, etc. I believe the Internet would qualify as a
"public" forum - although that's not the only applicable context.
This entire subject can be irrelevant if people exercise reasonable care
and reserve in their complaints pro and con, not just in this news group,
but in the many others that comprise the Internet. Those with strong
opinions can be found in many groups, and these kinds of issues become of
concern only when emotions run high and words too loose.
I've merely asked - very directly - that you be careful in what you say
about people, directly and indirectly. I think that's good advice here and
in all the other groups we may post in on the Nets. People have a right
to be concerned about their reputations, and to express that concern. I am
one of the people who expresses my concern when it seems sensible to. I
also think its good that everyone should feel responsible for what they
say, as they are in fact responsible.
Joe Kellett
: Joe Kellett spaketh thusly unto the world:
: My comments pertain solely to me as an individual, and to remarks
: directed as such.
: I value my reputation and integrity, and spoke out of my interest in
: these qualities of life.
: Knowing the law the endeavors to protect these rights for me and thousands
: of other individuals, I expressed my concern clearly. There is nothing
: more or less to it than that.
Well, the law protects the right to free speech and religious freedom also.
Now that I've calmed down a bit, may I ask what statements I have made that
you consider libelous, slanderous, or defamatory towards you personally?
Maybe I should make my opinion of you clear since my light-to-heat ratio may
have been going down of late:
My assumption is that you are the same kind of person I was as a TMer. To
wit, I assume that you are a "good person", who promotes TM out of sincere
conviction that TM is a "good thing", and out of a sincere desire to help
people. I believe that your vigor on amt is a reflection of this dedication
and sincerity. I get plenty pissed with you sometimes, but I firmly believe
in your dedication and sincerity.
As I stated elsewhere, I don't think any TMer has an intention to deceive
people. They consider that they promote TM in the way that they do in order
to _avoid_ "deceiving" people with information that the people will not be
able to properly understand or properly act upon.
I have been a tad piqued of late as I've been examined and cross-examined
about my stability of mind and strength of character, but I consider that I
deliberately set myself up for that. And I'm plenty piqued by being
threatened with legal action, but I am still sincere in this evaluation of
you. I think you are a "good person", trying to transmit "truth" to people
in the way you think best for them, promoting a spiritual system that you
honestly feel to be beneficial.
But I think you are wrong in your perception of _facts_, not in your
character or in your intentions.
As example (there had to be one coming) might be a man who is an herbalist
who touts an herbal cure. (Note, this is _not_ a veiled reference to
Maharishi Auyrveda -- there are lots of herbal remedies in the world). Many
people who take the remedy end up swearing by it, and some of those train to
be herbalists in the man's system. They eagerly promote the cure, "knowing"
it to be a great wonder.
Some customers complain that they have developed a painful and dangerous
problem from the herbal cure. These people call the original herbalist a
fraud or an incompetent, and say that his organization deceives people by
not revealing that this physical problem occurs at a distressing rate among
patients. They say that the "cure" is fraudulent, and results are obtained
by placebo effect rather than from herbal actions. They receive support
from some scientists. (Other scientists, of course, are enthusiastically
taking the herbal cure.)
Advocates of the cure say that the relationship between the cure and the
syndrome is unproven, and the problems would have occurred anyway. Also,
people developing the problems didn't follow instructions or the problem
would have been resolved. They are convinced that there is no deficiency
with the cure. Many people love the cure, and wouldn't be without it. The
advocates enthusiastically continue to promote the cure.
One herbal advocate objects to a critic who vocally claims to have been
physically damaged, and who vocally claims that the cure is a fraud. The
advocate decides to stop this horrible person and says "If you call this
organization deceptive, and say that the cure is a fraud, you are defaming
me because I promote and sell the cure. If you continue, I could sue you."
The critic says "I'm not criticizing _you_ personally. I believe you to be
sincere. But I think you are serving an organization that is not worthy of
you, and are _unknowingly_ hurting those people who end developing this
physical problem from the herbs. If I remain silent, I am allowing others
to be hurt."
Sadly, anyone can sue anyone else. But do you think the herbal advocate
would have a _moral_ case against the critic? In other words, has the
critic _really_ defamed the herbal advocate? Should the critic be silenced
by threat of legal action? Would this be the morality promoted by TM?
I merely think that you are promoting something that you don't _know_ is
damaging for many people. Do you really think this is defamatory? Do you
really think I've said anything about you other than that? If so, please
let me know what the statements were. Maybe there is something I should
apologize for. It wouldn't be the first time. I've really tried hard to
stick to issues, which is a stated principle of mine, while under a lot of
pressure. I've criticized people's debating styles unmercifully, but I
don't consider that defamatory. I've been just a tad "defamed" by innuendo
myself, BTW, but it never occured to me to shut people up with threat of a
suit.
Other than that, as I said anyone can file a lawsuit. If you feel that is
what you have to do, I can't stop you. I don't _really_ want to write a
book or appear on Oprah. I want to continue quietly picking up my life.
But I don't feel that I can be silent with a good conscience about TM. So
you'll have to do what you have to do. And I'll have to keep doing what I
have to do and take the consequences. I respect your right to speak the
truth as you see it. I've never asked _you_ to silence yourself. Maybe you
could consider respecting _my_ right to speak the truth as _I_ see it.
I think you would attract more respect for TM with that attitude, if that is
really your purpose.
jk...@news.delphi.com
All this discussion of lawsuits...
I am on the system now (Pat Ryan).
The court in Washington D.C. ruled that TM teachers are agents of the
movement.
The movement lies.
Mahesh lies.
Teachers of TM tell lies.
Lets just look at some of the lies;
Movement Claims [MC]
Facts [F]
[MC] TM is not a religion.
[F] NJ court rules TM a religion.
Court of appeals rules TM is a religion. Malnak vs Yogi 592 F.2d 197 (1979).
[MC] Mantras are meaningless sounds. Selected for each person based upon a
system of rules or formulae by which they are assigned to individuals.
[F] Maharishi states in Beacon Light of the Himalayas (10/55) *We can
take any word..even the word mike can be taken..thus we find that any sound
can serve our purpose of training the mind to become sharp. For our
practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal gods. Such
mantras fetch to us the grace of personal gods and make us happier in
every walk of life.
As to the formulae by which mantras are give...each TM teacher is given a
set of mantras to teach. I have discovered 21 sets of mantras. Some
teachers have 2 mantra to teach, others have 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 or
17 mantras to teach. Some teachers give mantras by an age criteria other
TM teachers give mantras by a sex criteria, while still other TM teachers
give mantras by an age and sex criteria. What one TM teacher gives a 30
year old male another TM teacher gives Man or women age 55-60. As for the
science of mantras, it is not a science.
[MC] TM comes from an ancient tradition - that has preserved the technique
and has a procedure to insure that TM is kept pure.
[F] Then there is the puja. The ceremony that is performed to protect the
Holy Tradition teaching from change. It seems it does not work. Since
1960 the TM holy of holy - the steps of initiation have also changed, as
has the translation of the puja.
The mantras have changed, the steps of initiation have
changed and the, translation of the puja has changed!
[MC] There are no adverse effects of TM.
[F] Read the checking notes. What are overpowering thoughts? What are
body movements?
What about the studies by Otis, Heide, Borkovec, Glueck, Stroebel, French,
Lazarus, Persinger, Castillo,Holmes, Solomon, Cappo, Greenberg the West
German Government and others?
[MC] In 1977 the Movement produced a book called Enlightenment and the
Siddhis. In the book are listed experiences - *I was sitting on a couch
meditating at the time ... and my body moved up and down on the couch
about tree times and the next experience I had was of hearing my body
touch the floor. I say hearing because I didn't feel it until after I
heard it. It touched down, very, very softly. There was very little
feeling of contact. I moved about a six foot distance at that time.
[F] No one has ever levitated. Where was this person at the last Yogic
Flying races? This is fradulent.
[MC]In England they claimed they could cure AIDS,
[F] The doctors who claimed it lost their licenses - for ever- it seems
the Maharishi cure involved eating feces. All the victim died. The
doctors now are part of the TM Natural Law party.
And on and on and on..
The TM-EX Newsletter documents the facts. TM-EX POB 7565, Arlington, VA
22207.
James Cook
: I respect your right to speak the
: truth as you see it. I've never asked _you_ to silence yourself. Maybe you
: could consider respecting _my_ right to speak the truth as _I_ see it.
I've not tried to keep anyone from speaking. What I _did_ just say was:
-----
This entire subject can be irrelevant if people exercise reasonable care
and reserve in their complaints pro and con, not just in this news group,
but in the many others that comprise the Internet. Those with strong
opinions can be found in many groups, and these kinds of issues become of
concern only when emotions run high and words too loose.
I've merely asked - very directly - that you be careful in what you say
about people, directly and indirectly. I think that's good advice here and
in all the other groups we may post in on the Nets. People have a right
to be concerned about their reputations, and to express that concern. I am
one of the people who expresses my concern when it seems sensible to. I
also think its good that everyone should feel responsible for what they
say, as they are in fact responsible.
-----
James Cook
Joe Kellett
: Joe Kellett spaketh thusly unto the world:
: : I respect your right to speak the
: : truth as you see it. I've never asked _you_ to silence yourself. Maybe you
: : could consider respecting _my_ right to speak the truth as _I_ see it.
: I've not tried to keep anyone from speaking. What I _did_ just say was:
<quote missing from original>
: -----
: This entire subject can be irrelevant if people exercise reasonable care
: and reserve in their complaints pro and con, not just in this news group,
: but in the many others that comprise the Internet. Those with strong
: opinions can be found in many groups, and these kinds of issues become of
: concern only when emotions run high and words too loose.
: I've merely asked - very directly - that you be careful in what you say
: about people, directly and indirectly. I think that's good advice here and
: in all the other groups we may post in on the Nets. People have a right
: to be concerned about their reputations, and to express that concern. I am
: one of the people who expresses my concern when it seems sensible to. I
: also think its good that everyone should feel responsible for what they
: say, as they are in fact responsible.
And all I asked for is an example of a statement that I have made that you
find defamatory to you personally, as opposed to being a statement of fact
about MMY, the TM basic technique, TM the spiritual path, or MMY's Movement.
If you are truly sincere in _avoiding_ problems, rather than trolling for
them, you will help me understand by giving me an example.
--Joe
(Having had the rare Usenet experience of being threatened by a TM advocate
with legal action for defamation on account of my criticisms of TM, I now
add the following statement to my postings in order avoid any future
misunderstandings: All advocates of TM that I have ever encountered have
been good people dedicated to helping others by promoting methods that they
sincerely believe are helpful. My criticisms are limited to issues of
_fact_ about the actual helpfulness of such methods. I also criticize MMY's
individual competence as a spiritual guide, and criticize policies
personally set by him for the promotion of TM. I do not think that any TM
advocate is deficient in character or knowingly doing anything wrong, just
as I don't think that I was deficient in character or knowingly doing
anything wrong when I used to advocate TM myself. Please bring any
statement of mine that seems to contradict this to my attention, and I will
either explain the misunderstanding or apologize.)
--
Joe Kellett
jkel...@netcom.com
Mike Doughney
> I've not tried to keep anyone from speaking. What I _did_ just say was:
<deleted>
>I've merely asked - very directly - that you be careful in what you say
>about people, directly and indirectly.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. "Merely asked", huh?
Let's review... what you actually posted.
In <jcookCH...@netcom.com> on Sat, 27 Nov 1993 22:24:51 GMT:
>A reasonable person would likely interpret this to mean
>that those people are committing fraud and/or violating the law. This is
>a very short jump, if at all, from libel, defamation. I am referring to
>your remarks to the effect that all teachers are con men and therefore,
>I, by implication, am one too.
>
>Now is that the public assertion you wish to make and be responsible for?
>
>Are you indicating that I'm a con man - Mike, Tim, Joe? Are you
>suggesting that I'm a criminal? Are you suggesting that I'm engaging in
>active fraud against members of the public? If this is what you're
>saying, say it clearly if you are willing to be responsible for those
>remarks. If it is not, act like gentlemen and speak more specificly.
and in <jcookCH...@netcom.com> on Sun, 28 Nov 1993 08:41:15 GMT:
>If you don't want to be responsible for innuendo of this type -
>back off. I've been archinving it too - for longer than you.
>
>I've advised you both politely and directly. All of you. If you're going
>to speak as you have been, expect to be responsible for it.
Yes, let's all be so "polite", shall we? You made your bullying,
heavy-handed attempt to quash criticism of Mahesh and his movement
in the most polite and authoritative words. But it's nothing more
than a crude and specious threat of litigation from an overgrown child
with a keyboard.
Thank you for initiating me into that exclusive club of those who've
been threatened with legal action by posting their views to Usenet.
It certainly has a lot of entertainment value; I've been hearing a lot
of laughter from friends and colleagues after telling them how yet
another net newbie has gotten his feelings hurt.
Many groups have a cycle. They begin so innocently, with so many nice
people, such idealistic goals. But as the years go by, something
changes. The goals mutate from the lofty to the mundane, from the
spiritual to the material. People discover that power sometimes
corrupts, and that those in power are far less perfect than they
claim. But to admit that the organization may never have been what
they thought it was, and that they themselves have changed, is next to
impossible for many.
I sense that some may feel that their memories of how innocent and
wonderful it all was at one time are somehow being tarnished by what
some of us have said here.
Some of us (including me, BTW) may have a lot of cherished personal
recollections that are in some way connected to what I criticize today.
At the same time, I have had many questions, and a lingering need for
explanations for the strange things that I occasionally witnessed and
heard about. My desire for an explanation, along with an honest
realization that I was taken by a very sophisticated con, outweighs
whatever sentimental attachment I ever had to the group.
Others may find their balance at a different point.
James Cook
I doubt that my remarks, partially quoted by you, really interest anyone.
But . . . for those with more than idle curiousity, I suggest reading all
of the threads together, in whole, to understand the true context in which
they're made. It would be hard to understand this issue otherwise, as it
is spread through a number of threads. I expressed my personal view on
the subject once, and don't feel the need to allocate further time to it.
I'm sure you'd like to twist and turn as much mileage out of little
"snips" glimpses, so . . . please continue.
Joe Kellett
: In article <754477...@swarb.demon.co.uk> da...@swarb.demon.co.uk writes:
: >
: >On the other hand we see people who give every appearance of having
: >been fanatics when they were TMers, and remain just as much fanatics now.
: >They saw the light and were blinded. They turned away, saw the light again
: >and were blinded again.
I'll leave it up to the non-TMers and the partially-committed TMers who I am
trying to reach to decide who is fanatical here and who isn't.
: I agree with this statement completely. Well put. Fanatics tend to be
: fanatics. Both Tim and Joe have "revealed" to us that they were
: fanatics for TM. Now they are certainly fanatically against it.
Funny, when I supported TM I never called TM critics "fanatics". I never
threatened to sue somone who opposed TM. I never tried to impugn the
character of a TM critic. I think I was a pretty tame ol' fellow. I guess
I just probably don't accurately understand the meaning of "fanaticism".
The only thing I _did_ do was believe Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Not
recommended. Bad idea. Don't do it. Give it a miss. Keep walking. Find
a spiritual teacher who knows what he is doing, a Hindu teacher if you
prefer.
: They
: have the gall to accuse us constantly of all sorts of ridiculous things,
I've never accused you of anything other than transient rudeness when you
get pissed, and consistently unfair debating practices. You just seem to
have wrapped yourself in the TM cloak to the extent that you take every TM
criticism personally. Just a guess.
To repeat, I sincerely think highly of TMers. I don't like them in my face
calling me names, distorting my statements, and impugning my character, but
I chalk that off to dedication (I won't even say "fanaticism") and
adrenalin.
: while they themselves are constantly insulting us and our intelligence
: with just about every paragraph they have to offer. Yet, not once are
: they willing to offer us concrete examples of what they underwent,
Not concrete? To summarize:
1) I had to go to heavy unstressing clinics at TTC for headaches and
convulsive head jerks. Unlike some, I got over the head jerks.
2) I came home too dissociated to continue at UCLA, where I had been a
straight "A" chemistry student before going to TTC.
3) I told MMY "I am a rishi" and he said "you are right".
4) I walked up to MMY to say "you and I were devas together" and he said
"what you have in your mind is right".
5) Being dissociated and believing MMY's spiritual direction was very bad
for me.
Which part don't you find "concrete". Well, the "very bad" part in (5)
maybe, but that's just an excuse to turn people's attentions away from (1)
through (4).
: only
: tidbits which suit their fanatic desire to undermine this net and TM in
: general. I still get a feeling they are hiding something, especially
: Tim and Joe. There is more than meets the eye here.
You have yet to even give an example of what I could possibly be "hiding"
that would have any bearing on (1) through (4). Who is not "concrete" here?
: Accuse me of
: whatever bullshit nonsense you want to, but the fact is that you have
: not told all of your experiences, which is all you have for a basis for
: your claims against TM, and I for one get the distinct feeling that you
: folks have some hidden agenda yourselves and are just projecting that on
: us for your own twisted needs.
This is total red-herring argumentation.
But you are free to have any "distinct feelings" you want. Just let _me_
starting announcing "distinct feelings" on this group, though, and watch the
fur fly! _I_ have to give "numbers".
: Not only that, they once accused me of Western-bashing, but I say that they
: are the ones guilty of Hindu-bashing in the way that they are using the term
: Hindu and Hinduism to cannote something most negative and base. That is
: what I, as a Hindu, gather from much of the way they use the terms Hindu
: and Hinduism. Too me, it is really sickening and disgusting.
To repeat for the umpteenth time: I do not consider Hinduism to be something
negative and base. I sincerely respect Hinduism greatly.
And earlier I quoted a Hindu yogi who considers MMY's _distortions_ of
Hinduism to be negative and base. Are you going to accuse this other yogi
of "Hindu bashing"?
Criticising TM is no more "Hindu bashing" than criticising The Tony Alamo
Foundation is "Christianity bashing".
: 103 posts after Thanksgiving vaca, and the vast majority of them either
: attacks or defenses. What a shame. What a waste of such a fine
: resource. All because 2 or 3 people's needs to muck up something which
: could be very usefull for many others. (Oh, I know, it's usefull for
: your deranged purposes).
Oh, it's "deranged" now. Sheesh, Rango. Cook's got his legal sights on me
and you're flinging things like "deranged". It jes' don't seem fair. The
double standard is alive and well. Anything that will shut a TM critic up
or impugn his character seems to be OK here.
--Joe
(A TM advocate on Usenet has threatened several critics of TM with legal
action for defamation. Defamation is not my intent. I personally know of no
character defects in any advocate of TM, nor am I aware of malicious
deception on the part of any advocate of TM. Please bring any of my
statements that apparently contradict this to my attention; I will publicly
explain or apologize, as appropriate.)
--
Joe Kellett
jkel...@netcom.com