Meditation

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Sun May 14, 2006 1:13 pm

OK, then I suggest Daffy's statement "I was physically dragged into classrooms on many occasions to meditate" be rephrased to "I was physically dragged into classrooms on many occasions to waste my time sitting there doing nothing, as it was clear I couldn't be made to meditate."

leon
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:13 pm

Postby leon » Sun May 14, 2006 2:04 pm

anti_ses wrote:OK, then I suggest Daffy's statement "I was physically dragged into classrooms on many occasions to meditate" be rephrased to "I was physically dragged into classrooms on many occasions to waste my time sitting there doing nothing, as it was clear I couldn't be made to meditate."


As you said before, as TM can be whatever you or anyone else wants it to be, logically you cannot say what it is not. For us at school meditation meant sitting down with minimal physical movement with our eyes closed.
(the mantra was only used by those initiated)
Therefore when I was forced to sit still, and watched carefully by a tutor to make sure my eyes were closed and not physically moving I was being forced to meditate.
Therefore you can force people to meditate.
You cannot say mediation is not merely sitting still with your eyes closed thinking whatever you want for 20 minutes as this contradicts your previous definition of TM.

QED

chopping logic like this is of course infantile and pointless, Daffys post is perfectly clear.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Sun May 14, 2006 2:53 pm

I would disagree, leon. It wasn't clear at all. If you're physically forced into a room "to meditate" then it's clear that the people who're forcing you are intending you to meditate. Yet this is exactly the logic that Goblinboy refutes in his defence of Daffy's wording.

leon wrote:You cannot say mediation is not merely sitting still with your eyes closed thinking whatever you want for 20 minutes as this contradicts your previous definition of TM.

Nowhere have I defined TM as "sitting still with your eyes closed thinking whatever you want for 20 minutes". Please check your references.

leon
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:13 pm

Postby leon » Sun May 14, 2006 9:09 pm

anti_ses wrote:In reality, though, TM can be what you want it to be




TM can be what you want it to be, therefore it can be anything, including sitting still with eyes closed not moving, letting thoughts freely wander.

For those not initiated into TM our meditation consisted of being made to sit motionless with our eyes closed. So we were often physically forced to meditate. It's very simple even if it contradicts your own personal definitions.
Add coercion, peer pressure physical manhandling and you have firm grounds for using the word forced, not your misleading "promoted".
For some, "doing nothing" would be the highest form of meditation possible.
Last edited by leon on Sun May 14, 2006 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Sun May 14, 2006 9:16 pm

You took that out of context, leon. We were discussing (and hopefully you have been following the discussion) whether or not meditation and, in particular, TM is religious in nature. When I say it can be what you want it to be, I clearly meant it can either be religious or non-religious.

leon
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:13 pm

Postby leon » Mon May 15, 2006 1:51 pm

fair enough. My main point is that it is possible to force people to meditate if the definition of what constitutes meditation includes simply describing the physical aspects, as it often meant in St James, especially to those not initiated into Tm.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:41 am

I happened to catch an interview yesterday morning on the Radio 4 Today programme with David Lynch and Donovan Leitch. (Scroll down to 0820 and click to listen.) They were promoting a plan to introduce TM into British schools and, despite coming out with some outrageous claims, were given an annoyingly uncritical ride by the interviewer, Edward Stourton.

A prestigious programme like Today really should do better. A religious cult is trying to infiltrate schools and influence children's minds with unfounded nonsense yet two high-profile cult members are allowed to make extraordinary claims for the cult's techniques without any serious challenge. Oh, and Donovan even gets to sing a little song. I hope British parents will take a less frivolous attitude towards this cult's sinister plans.


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests