TM-Free Blog Comments Now up to 10K characters allowed
One question that comes up again and again is whether I recommend that they quit meditating transcendentally or not.
So, John, you have been doing some exit counseling, but you are apparently not a certified exit counselor. What's up with that?
Fact is, that there is no such thing as "meditating transcendentally" or "TM". Meditation simply means to think things over, so in that sense, everyone meditates to a certain degree. And we are all transcending, even without a technique. Hardly a person could be found that doesn't think and pause once or twice a day to take stock of their own mental mind stuff.
What you seem to be doing is just shuttling people from one cult to another anti-cult cult. Which is kind of ironic when you think about it.
You've been in and out of cults for most of your adult life, up to and including today. What is even more ironic, you don't seem to be opposed to the cult of Osama bin Laden. Go figure.
John ...
I found real value in your post. I have one additional suggestion for those wishing to completely divest themselves of lingering effects of TM:
Work up the courage to say your mantra out loud!
It's a scary thing, I know, but after more than fifteen years of not meditating, I still clung to the concept that my mantra was not to be expressed verbally. I had to work myself up to the desire to rid myself of it, almost like deciding not to drink alcohol anymore or something similar.
So I picked a date and decided that on that day, my mantra would come out. I am blessed to live in an environmentally beautiful area with a great recreational trail running through it. I walked out on the trail about two miles, stopped on a bridge, took a deep breath, and said my mantra out loud ... several times, and louder each time.
I can tell you that I felt light-headed for a few minutes after the experience, but extremely light-footed on the return walk.
The experience was suble, just like the mantra, but I know have confidence that neither the TM movement, nor TM itself has any hooks in me and no control over me, a great relief in itself.
It took me almost twenty years to accomplish this, so I don't advise rushing into it. But in my experience, letting go of the mantra is a big, big step in letting go of TM.
--- Brady
An interesting approach, Brady. The mysticism of TM secrecy does dig its claws and hooks deep. I like to call it the "what if" factor.
Many people see Mahesh coming out with more and more stuff and imagine that he is some profound well of wisdom.
Very few have been able to watch him pumping everyone he can for whatever information he can.
He takes from one and sells to another, all the time digging his roots and tentacles deeper and deeper.
Just because we cannot figure out how a magician does a trick doesn't make it magic. Something also good to keep in mind regarding Mahesh and Maheshism.
(PS I said all my mantras out loud. Yep, you're on to something. One more nail popped out of the box of TM in which still some part of me was trapped. THANKS.)
S
Brady,
Great suggestion. I, too, found some relief from revealing my mantra, aing (later, shri aing namah). Although to be honest, even today 12 years later, I still stumble or stutter when I speak it out. Programming goes deep. For what it's worth, not all traditions insist on keeping the mantras secret. Swami Sivananda printed them decades ago in his manual on Japa Yoga (Mantra Sastra). Muktananda freely disclosed that his initiation mantra was "Om Namah Shivaya." I believe the Maharishi kept it secret largely to create an air of mysticism. He even lied about them. In at least one interview, he said that there were thousands of TM mantras. To my knowledge there were fewer than 20 given out and most teachers seem to have received a standard list of 16.
J.
He even lied about them. In at least one interview, he said that there were thousands of TM mantras.
Actually he didn't, if you look at the transcript (this was the David Frost interview). It was a bit Clintonesque, but he responded literally to the question Frost asked, which was how many mantras--not TM mantras--there were.
John, why on earth do you have that ridiculous German "study" still up on Trancenet, which you link to in your post with the words "sound research," of all things? It's less "sound" than the very worst of the TM-produced studies. You were told by no less an authority than Barry Markovsky on alt.m.t that it was worthless. Roger Nelson of PEAR told you the same thing.
It was never peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal. The study was sponsored by a fundamentalist Christian group.
Also, your blurb on it contains falsehoods. The only court to consider the study's validity ruled against it, essentially saying it was garbage, based on the testimony of three independent experts.
The higher courts ruled against TM and for the German goverment's right to cite the study on technical, jurisdictional grounds; they didn't "uphold its findings."
The percentages you cite were for a very small and very highly biased sample and can by no means be said to apply to all TMers.
The "researchers" solicited subjects who had had bad experiences and asked them to recruit other subjects who had had bad experiences, so naturally the percentages of those making negative reports on the questionnaires were high. And some of the questionnaires were filled out by family members of the TMer, not the TMer him/herself.
There are other major problems with it as well.
All this was discussed in great detail on alt.m.t, with your active participation. It's such a worthless piece of work you shouldn't have it up at all, but if you must, you should at least describe it accurately.
To link to this trash with the words "sound research" and then accuse the TMO of "pseudoscience" is ironic in the extreme.
(Anyone who's dubious should check the archives of alt.m.t at Google Groups; do a search for the phrase "German study" and you should turn up a lot of the discussion.)
Any belief or any type of conditioning, we can try to get rid of, as it is some form of dependence - but that doesn't say that the thing itself, here TM is bad. In fact, getting rid of one habbit, just because its a habbit, will not solve the problem of conditioning, you acquire others. In fact that is what you suggest: Overcoming the serotonin addiction of TM by substituting the serotonin through sports! (Btw, both healthy activities in my eyes) This is hilarious. What about of simply making a decission in your life, what is good for you, what to get rid off (e.g. dependence on an organization) and what to keep (e.g. meditating) If you think that the simple act of continuing your mantra makes you somehow dependend on the TM org, then you have an extraordinary amount of fear and low self-esteem. You don't warn against sitting in front of TV which may make you even more suggestible. Get real!
Thanks for your input Trinity. I reckon that in the absence of a personal guru, it is a good idea to check that what one is doing is indeed beneficial and not just based on faith. Therefore dropping the habit of the TM mantra can act as a check and a re-evaluation, and can also usher in a resumption of the method.
As you say, TM is not Maharishi, and it can be taught by another name.
There is a long tradition of people repeating the name of God in order to bring light to their lives. TM is just that, although the teaching has largely been stripped of this sort of terminology.
So, if someone has a problem with the TM organisation, it might well be because of the organisation rather than the practice of meditation. If the practice is doing something, a period of abstention should highlight what that is.
I guess one should be flexible enough to check one's own situation. In the absence of a guru, one has to accept an increased responsibility for oneself, including subjecting oneself to the test of comparing what one is like with and without the use of TM.
They spoke of a variation of dissociative identity disorder, known commonly as “multiple personality disorder,” which they hypothesized developed in cult victims.
This "variation" they claim occurs in "cult victims" is quite different from what we think of as "multiple personality disorder," and it's exceptionally misleading to suggest otherwise.
Just for two points, MPD is virtually always the result of extreme abuse in childhood; and it does not develop in adulthood.
When I returned to the TM Org each time, I had the feeling that I was abandoning my secular self
One of the characteristics of MPD is that each personality is amnesiac for the times when it is not in control. If "Cult John" were an MPD personality, it would have no sense of the "Secular John" personality having been abandoned, and vice-versa.
Here's a FAQ on multiple personality disorder:
http://tinyurl.com/yqwlkw
Judy,
Your posts deserve a reply. I've been backed up for a couple of days. I'll try to respond tonight.
J.
Judy,
Regarding your comments on MPD. From West and Martin's paper: "Pseudo-identity is more than a temporary role assumed by a subject in a laboratory exercise or during a transient period of intoxication. It is more like an 'alter' in a case of multiple personality disorder (MPD). However, pseudo-identity differs from the alter of MPD in the following important respects...." The authors discuss at length the similarities and differences. Interested readers can see the article in its entirety via the link I provided.
Your understanding of MPD is not entirely accurate. It is not uncommon for someone suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder, the current clinical name for the disorder, to be aware of one or more alters. Also, people who experience severe trauma as adults can also develop dissociative phenomena -- such as fugue states and "spacing out." Current understanding of dissociative disorders exist on a continuum from mild dissociation, or "spacing out," to full-blown alter personalities.
The authors of this paper offer a hypothesis that sufferers of PTSD as well as cult-related coercion may develop "pseudo-identity," which they liken to developing an alter personality -- similar to, but not identical to multiple personality disorder.
It sounds like you are disagreeing with the authors' hypothesis, but you are not refuting it in any formal way. As with any hypothesis, it may not be proved likely after further research. To my knowledge the hypothesis has not been refuted in the literature.
This doesn't make it "true," but it remains as a possibility. Whether their hypothesis is true or not, the authors' observations of cult veterans' changes in personality remain.
J.
The authors of this paper offer a hypothesis that sufferers of PTSD as well as cult-related coercion may develop "pseudo-identity," which they liken to developing an alter personality -- similar to, but not identical to multiple personality disorder.
Yes, it's pretty significantly different. As you say, there's a continuum, with MPD at the most severe extreme. Given the authors' descriptions of the cult environments of their example patients, seems to me the TMO would be at the least-severe end of that continuum.
It sounds like you are disagreeing with the authors' hypothesis, but you are not refuting it in any formal way.
No, John, I'm objecting to the way you casually slipped in the reference to MPD as if that's what the authors were describing, when it obviously is not. There was no need for you to even mention MPD in this context, and certainly not without heavily qualifying and explaining it as you do above in your response to my comment.
People often don't read source material but rather assume that if you're citing a source, you must be representing it accurately. That shows a lack of critical thinking (or maybe just that a person is short on time), but it's not right to exploit it with this kind of misrepresentation, even if it would be cleared up by reading the article you referenced.
Judy,
The main point of the article was the similarities between Pseudo-Identity, the hypothesized disorder put forth by the authors, and dissociative identity disorder (or multiple personality disorder). So I don't feel I did any disservice to the authors' intentions in the way I originally worded the article.
I did not attempt to slip in a casual mention of MPD. I think sometimes you see an evil intention in my actions that just isn't present. I offer the comments section here, totally unmoderated, as an attempt to offer people with differing opinions to my own their chance to make their case. This doesn't seem like evil intent on my part.
I do thank you, moreover, for raising your objections. It gave me a chance to expand on my brief mention of the article. It's my hope that more readers here will choose to read the West/Martin article. It's important and pretty easy reading.
I notice in your comments on my posts, as well as those you make over on Fairfield Life, that you seem to have little tolerance for views that differ from your own. In particular, you seem to insist that I and others word things nearly exactly to the way you would word them.
As I've said before, I can't promise to word things to your satisfaction. But I'll do my best to answer your objections when you raise them.
I'll try to respond to your other objection to the article later this evening. I don't have time right now, as I am at work.
J.
Your post suggested, falsely, that TM causes MPD, and I very seriously doubt that was inadvertent. I've seen that kind of thing from you far too often in the past. (Specifics on request.)
The point of the article was not the similarities between "pseudo-identity" and MPD; if anything, it was the differences between them. There was, as I said, no need for you to even mention MPD.
Essentially, the term and concept of "pseudo-identity" were invented by the authors to describe a particular kind of dissociative symptom among "cult victims." They point out that the term has been used only twice before, and in both cases in quite different contexts from the way the authors use it.
They needed a diagnostic category to put "pseudo-identity" in. They didn't put it in "dissociative identity disorder" because it was similar to MPD but because it was the closest established category they could find. They spend far more time discussing the differences than the similarities. The main point of the article is the nature of "pseudo-identity" and how to treat it.
I notice in your comments on my posts, as well as those you make over on Fairfield Life, that you seem to have little tolerance for views that differ from your own.
That's a thought-stopper, John. What I have little tolerance for is misrepresentation.
In particular, you seem to insist that I and others word things nearly exactly to the way you would word them.
And that's another thought-stopper. There are any number of ways you could have worded your post to avoid misleading readers.
It's fine that you make comments available, but that shouldn't be an excuse for making a misleading post. Just as many people don't read the source material you link to, they don't read the comments either. You have a responsibility to get it right in the post itself.
Judy,
I have no idea how you torture out what you do out of my post. The article I reference suggests that cult veterans experience "pseudo-identity" which the authors spend most of their article comparing to MPD, now known as dissociative identity disorder. My brief comment that pseudo-identity is similar to MPD seems perfectly in keeping with the authors' thesis.
In a small section of the paper, they make distinctions between MPD and pseudo-identity. They also reference Pat Ryan and TM explicitly in a section of the article. So it is clear that my mention of their article and their thesis is apropos of my own article.
Why you continue to beat this dead horse when readers here can read the article for themselves is beyond me. I don't intend to take this discussion further.
As so many times in the past, not just with me but with many posters who disagree with you, you impugn the motives of those who disagree with you. I'm certainly not the first to point this out to you.
I believe that there are readers who agree with you. However, I think for most readers the extremity of your position reflects most of all on you personally.
When an opponent is busy destroying herself, the best thing I can do is simply get out of her way and let her accomplish her own self-immolation.
J.
The article I reference suggests that cult veterans experience "pseudo-identity" which the authors spend most of their article comparing to MPD, now known as dissociative identity disorder.
No, they don't, John. They first establish that "pseudo-identity" has significant differences from MPD, and spend the rest of the article elaborating on the nature of "pseudo-identity." They have essentially expanded the dissociative identity disorder category to include "pseudo-identity" as well as MPD, but they're clearly two different entities.
So it is clear that my mention of their article and their thesis is apropos of my own article.
And of course I never suggested otherwise. That was never my objection, as you know.
As so many times in the past, not just with me but with many posters who disagree with you, you impugn the motives of those who disagree with you. I'm certainly not the first to point this out to you.
Certainly not. Others with questionable motives predictably use the identical thought-stopper.
To put it another way, I impugn the motives of those who claim to disagree with me when I think their motives are questionable. That's a small subset of the people with whom I disagree, but you're included in it. And as you note, I'm hardly alone in that opinion.
Whether my opinion is "extreme" or reflects the reality, I'll leave up to each person to decide for themselves. They could start by reading the study you cited.
The bottom line is that involvement with the TMO does not lead to MPD, contrary to your misleading phrasing.
Is it really "extreme" to point that out? Or is it "extreme" to suggest that it's "extreme" of me to do so?
hello friends,
this is a comment to a rather old post by gina, but the most relevant place for my post.
on friday i'll see my psychiatrist who has agreed to refer me to a researcher in his office who uses cognitive tests to diagnose neurological issues. after i take the tests i plan to post the results here at the tm-free blog. i've volunteered to be a subject for research because i'm strong enough to do more than i have to, and i still believe that my problems could be studied in a way useful to others.
i've been uncomfortable for a long time, and i know for sure that there are others who have similar problems to a much higher degree. i have used mantra meditation a few times recently to good effect. kicking the tm habit is a legitimate idea. someone posted a comment here about this blog being an anti-cult cult. that is also legitimate. i think the best i can do is to continue to report my experiences here. we'll see if these upcoming cognitive tests yield any useful data.
yours,
joel
Commenting by HaloScan
