David and the Phoenix - Great Summer Read for Pre-teens

©RKSilipo. All rights reserved.

At age ten I read a book about a beautiful, multi-coloured, giant bird and a boy named David. They talked together a lot, and they went on adventures. That story stayed with me for fifty years.

So I decided to try to find the book, just to have it in my library and maybe re-read it someday. Thinking it would be out of print, I started searching the internet book sellers (excluding Amazon*) for it.

To my delight, I discovered that

www.purplehousepress.com

is in the business of finding and publishing modern classic children’s books, from picture books for the very young to books like David and the Phoenix, by Edward Ormondroyd, for older children.

So I bought the book, and I sat down to read it again. I enjoyed it as much now as I did all those years ago. What a treat to read a well-written, gripping narrative that doesn’t talk down to children and gives them challenging ideas to ponder while telling a cracking good story.

David’s adventures with Phoenix are exciting, fairy tale journeys, with the boy riding the back of the huge gorgeous bird. They meet Gryffons (dangerous), a Sea Monster (who guards a pirate treasure), and Fauns (fun), among other creatures, all known well by Phoenix, who calls on them to help him with David’s education.

Resourceful and persistent, David uses all his instincts and abilities to visit Phoenix every day and to help Phoenix escape the over-zealous scientist who wants to capture him or kill him for a trophy. This pursuer adds plenty of threat and conflict to the story to keep the kids reading.

This book is about friendship, trust and loyalty, and, interestingly, about self-reliance along with these qualities. It shows two very unlike characters working and playing together, facing challenges and solving problems by give-and-take and dogged determination.

In the end, the story is about giving up one’s own selfish desires for the good of a friend. What better lesson to learn over the summer vacation?

*The Humane Society of the United States reported that Amazon sells dog fighting magazines on it site and has denied all requests to stop selling them. I refuse to buy anything from a company that promotes cruelty to animals.

“Tantric Sexuality” - A Stunning DVD Course (Beginning Tantra)

©Ramona K Silipo. All rights reserved.

Over the weekend my husband and I

watched an excellent DVD beginner’s

course in Tantra. This is the first I’ve

seen (and I’ve watched many) that I

can recommend without major

reservations or qualifying statements.

The Beginner’s Guide to Tantric

Sexuality, written by and featuring

Leora Lightwoman and Roger Lichy, is a

good beginning for many reasons.

• The DVD is organized in six separate lessons which you can do in your own time, at your own pace.
• If you follow the instructions closely, you will have developed your own Tantric ritual to create your sacred space and to begin and end each practice.
• The exercises show you basic Tantric principles, and you learn by doing them. The focus is on doing and experiencing rather than theorizing or intellectualizing.
• The pacing of the lessons is good, giving plenty of time for you to try each element before moving on to another one.
• The design, direction and print quality are all excellent (unlike many Tantra DVDs and tapes I’ve seen which are amaeturish and seem to be shot by someone’s granddad with shaky hands). This is a beautiful film to watch.
  

The DVD is published in The Mind Body Soul series at www.newworldmusic.com

You can find out more about Leora Lightwoman on her web site, www.diamondlighttantra.com

On Christianity, on Mysticism - A Few Thoughts

©2008, Ramona K Silipo. All rights reserved.

The discussion about Christianity (whether or not, I mean) has been going on in Quaker circles here for years now. In the last revision of Faith and Practice (the book with the queries and testimonies) pretty much all the references to Christianity were removed. When I first went to Strawberry Creek meeting, the meeting was described as Christ-centered rather than Christian. Friends accept anyone into meeting for worship, and woe betide any meeting that offends the one single Bah’ai who might wander in one day. The issue is serious, that is, that Friends in general do not believe there is one exclusive path to God, and so do not judge other religions. But it is carried to silly extremes lately. (I think the fundamentalists and evangelicals have a lot to answer for. People shy away from saying Christian because of all the negative and repressive connotations connected with the fringe elements.)

My definition of Chrisitian is pretty simple: A Christian is someone who sees Jesus Christ as a teacher or leader, someone whose life is an example to follow. Redemption, sin and all the rest don’t enter into it. If you follow Jesus’s example, you’re a Christian in my book. You may be a trying Christian, but at least you’re trying.

That’s part 1. Part 2 is, I love all the Jesus stories. They are whacking good yarns, in my book. Raising people from the dead, walking on water, making wine from water, accepting people as they are (i.e tax collectors and whores, etc.) — all of those are great stories, every bit as good as anything the Brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Andersen or C.S. Lewis came up with. Plus, in my view, it doesn’t matter whether he was “truly the Son of God” or not. If we do nothing more than follow his example we’re making an effort. As it happens, I do believe in his divinity. Whether he was more divine than Krishna or Buddha is another question, and, again, I don’t think it matters.

Oddly enough, the Christian mystics I know about are the Catholic ones, especially Theresa of Avila, who apparently had orgasmic experiences of Jesus (although we won’t find THAT word in any of the stories of her). I’ve always been fascinated that descriptions of Christian mystical experiences so often sound like sex as described in mildly pornographic novels. Is it all in their heads? Is it really a physical manifestation of the Holy Spriit entering their bodies? Is it delusions– and if delusions, from fasting or lack of sleep or other explainable reasons? Is it the Catholic Church’s so obvious masochism? What?

More seriously, mystical experiences are by definition unique and personal. No two people experience God in the same way. We are all imperfect humans, and we bring to any experience of God all the intellectual and emotional baggage we carry, no matter how genuine our intentions. Being open to being taken over by God is a pretty big order. Quaker meeting started the process for me; Tantra moved it forward very, very fast. Being able to surrender completely, even if only for a few seconds at a time, is an incredible grace. And the more you can do it, the more exciting and wondrous it becomes.

My favourite Jesus movie is Martin Scorcese’s Jesus movie, The Last Temptation of Christ. Willem Dafoe plays Jesus as a real man, with doubts and needs and secrets, not as a perfect godlike creature. I mean, he obviously likes women (which none of the other Jesus actors seemed to do). And the relationship between Judas, played by Harvey Keitel, and Jesus is close and loving (and interpreted by some hopefuls as homosexual, but I don’t see it). The apostles are very real too, bickering among themselves, all trying to impress Jesus. To me, showing these “holy” people as just human, with all the fears and needs we all have, makes them MORE holy, not less. They were able to overcome those very human failings and follow this guy for three years. That’s a big sacrifice if you were making money, sleeping with women and living a life before he turned up.

For me, that is the point: the mystical takes you out of the physical world and into the inexplicable, but even more real, world of pure spirit. Even if we only have it for a few seconds, or once or twice in a lifetime, what a gift! That some of us manage to have these experiences at length or repeatedly, then actually to communicate them in human language, and to have people hear and understand and follow— well, that’s a great grace.

Enough. I’m nattering on and on. I’ve been thinking about this for a couple of days, and it’s just spilling out.

Atheist Quakers? (2)

©2008, Ramona K Silipo. All rights reserved.

NB: See the posting of the same title on April 24, 2008 for the first part of this discussion

Continuing the discussion of non-theists among Friends, a non-theist said:

“Religion” can have two meanings: (1) to do with ‘God stuff’, worship, believing in spiritual powers. (2) a way of life, a set of rules/guidelines/ideas that enable a fair and just society. It may well be that Quakers, along with a large part of the Western World, are slowly capsizing from religion (1) to religion (2).

To which I reply:
The Religious Society of Friends has always “been about” both of these aspects. We have the Testimonies of Friends who came before us; we have our ongoing practice of living our principles in our daily lives; and we have continuing revelation.

The Testimonies are the experiences and thoughts of Friends whose lives were based on trying to follow Christ’s teachings. Some modern Friends seem to forget this– often. The Testimonies are based on following [George] Fox’s [founder of the Religious Society of Friends] efforts to return to an Apostolic faith, to follow simply Christ’s example and teachings. If you separate Christian thought and ethics from the Testimonies, you have hollow words.

We are not “capsizing” but are rather caving in. We are, as do many groups, allowing the squeaky wheel to steer the wagon. It is one thing to recognize other people’s beliefs without trying to beat ours into them; that is Quaker tradition and custom. It is another thing entirely to allow other people to bully us into adopting their beliefs. It’s one thing to refrain from proselytizing; it’s another thing to let ourselves be taken over by a concept (non-theism) that is diametrically opposed to what we are about, by history, custom and faith.

Non-theist (NT):
You can’t have relative truth. Truth is based on evidence, an “agreement with fact or reality.”

Theist (T):
Only objective truth is based on demonstrable facts. And facts do not always add up to Truth. For instance, Barack Obama (only because he’s on my mind lately) is thought of as the first viable Black candidate for the U.S. Presidency. But Obama’s mother is white. Objectively he is of mixed parentage. That is a fact. But the truth is that he is Black in every sense of the word that matters in the United States.

For me, the greatest Truth is based not on “objective” factual evidence but on experience. I have experienced (very vividly and in concrete ways) the presence of God. There are no scientific facts, no objective measurements, to “prove” this. I simply know it to be true.

NT:
One of my arguments with type (1) religion is that some of its proponents are accustomed to accepting things without evidence, and easily cope with ideas such as relative truth. They also do things like invade Iraq, for similar reasons.

T:
God’s existence cannot be proved in objective terms. Anything based on faith is just that, beyond observable fact or demonstration.

NT:
The often repeated Quaker query asks us about the source of “the promptings of love and truth in our hearts,” and the other things we know experientially as the leadings of God (where the word, “God,” has the meaning generally accepted by modern, educated people). Do they originate in each individual, the result of their genetic nature and their nurture?

T:
My personal answer to this is that the promptings of love and truth come from God– including the parenthetical qualifier. I choose sometimes to say “The Absolute,” or “The Divine Entity,” or “The Spirit,” or even the medieval spelling, “Godde,” in different contexts. But, yes, I experience leadings as coming from God.

My leading has been for many years that we relate to God as our own spirit and awareness allow us to. That is, if we are closed to the leadings, we do not hear or understand them; and if we are open we do. Nature or nurture undoubtedly conditions us to one state of awareness or the other. But God is always with us whether we understand God’s leadings or not.

NT:
If these ‘leadings’ etc are not from God, but are a human construct, is it acceptable nevertheless to name them ‘God’? I think to do so is thoroughly confusing. Why not call it Factor X, or ‘HC’ (for Human Construct)

T:
On the one hand, I know that each person’s understanding of “God” is individual and unique; and that each person’s relationship with God is unique to that person. On the other hand, I do not accept that non-belief in God is just another different understanding of God.

While I have my various issues with organized religion, I still think that the RELIGOUS Society of Friends ought to be just that, i.e. religious. My home meeting termed itself Christ-centered, keeping the “Christ” but avoiding the dreaded word, “Christian.” This seemed to be acceptable to everyone there.

NT:
I assume that all would agree that those who wrote and agreed our “Quaker Faith and Practice” (which contains many references to God) meant to convey by the use of the word, “God”’ not a human construct but has the generally accepted meaning. This being so, is it honest (to oneself and to others) mentally to translate every occurrence of the word ‘God’, giving it another definition?

T:
Short answer: No, it is not honest. It flies in the face of the Truth testimony.

Longer answer: Again, we come up against another traditional Quaker value, that of accepting that people come to God on various paths and that they are all acceptable. I don’t feel I could or ought to interfere with what is in someone’s mind when s/he says, “God” (or doesn’t say it).

By the same token, however, I don’t feel that any other person ought to interfere with my worship by pretending to be waiting upon the Lord when s/he doesn’t believe in the Lord (or any form of God). Worship is not meditating, thinking or merely sitting quietly. Worship is an active state of waiting with openness for the Spirit to manifest, in spoken ministry, perhaps; or, if we’re really focused, in a Gathered Meeting where everyone in the room is lifted by the Spirit.

NT:
Would it be a Good Thing if there were a new, post-religious,>spiritual, reformist society [of Friends], whose ethical basis and ‘testimonies’ were those of liberal Quakers?

T:
Possibly. I’ve thought about this before. But is there a workable definition of “liberal Quaker?” I mean, I think of myself as a liberal, even a leftie, in most political and social contexts as well
as in religion. I don’t think that identifying as a Christian automatically makes me a conservative Friend. (I mean, really– my Christ-centered meeting is in Berkeley, California, a place identified with just about everything left-wing.)

NT:
Should the Religious Society of Friends morph itself into that post-religious, etc., society?

T:
No. The newer group should leave the Religious Society and create their own organization as they wish it to be. I suspect, however, that few of them are committed enough to take on such a complex and demanding process.

NT:
Would it be fair to those Friends who do not wish to change in this way? (Many of us remember the pain and feel the loss of the Christo-centric Friends who felt unable to stay with us as we became more universalist since the midtwentieth century.

T:
Universalism implies encompassing every belief. I don’t think non-theist people generally do this. They want to be included/’accepted, but they do not as a rule respect the feelings or
needs of theists. (I base this observation on many discussions, in both Quaker and non-Quaker forums.) The non theists that I have been foolish enough to engage flatly refuse to accept that they do not understand the nature of worship if they think they can worship a God they do not believe in. Nor do they understand that their non-belief affects the quality of worship for the meeting as a whole.

NT:
Can anyone explain to me how person A’s ‘truth’ about something can validly differ from person B’s ‘truth’ about the supposedly same thing. If I were to assert that this letter is written in Swahili, and you say it is written in English, is my truth as valid as yours?

T:
There is a big difference between objective facts which can be proved or demonstrated, and spiritual facts which can only be experienced. This kind of analogy (or non analogy) is not very helpful. I don’t know if there is really one that is helpful. Spiritual life is a deeply personal experience, and we each choose our own path. This choice may be influenced by countless considerations, from how our parents taught us to what we read yesterday in the newspaper; but we do make a choice. Sometimes that choice is a conscious one, and sometimes it is simply drifting in one direction or another. Some of us choose not to have a spiritual life at all.

But this choice is not based on objective fact. It comes from our experiences, our innermost intuitions and instincts, intangible and indefinable. It is far more complex than objective facts

Weaving the Mundane with the Spiritual

©2008, Ramona K Silipo. All rights reserved.

It’s interesting. I’ve wanted all these years to erase the line between spiritual life and everyday life, and I’ve just realized that choosing these paint colours is an example of what I’ve been trying to do.

Seems pretty mundane, deciding what colour to paint a room. But it’s not just a matter of decoration. Colour is very, very powerful. Our responses to colour are not simple. We respond psychologically, emotionally and physically. For instance, a measurable weakening of muscles happens when people walk into a room painted certain shades of pink. But on the emotional level, pink, even cool hues of pink, usually makes people feel warm, relaxed and receptive. That’s why it’s considered a romantic colour.

Looking at the colours at different times of day, considering the times of day we spend the most time in each room, considering the emotional and psychological responses and THEN considering the spiritual connotations — i.e. a green aura indicates healing power and a violet aura indicates spiritual devotion, etc. — well, it’s subtle and complex. I’ve almost always used grey walls as a neutral canvas and put all the colour into the furnishings, and people’s responses have always been that my house is peaceful. Well, I want the peaceful sense, yes, but I want colours now that also reflect the joy my husband and I have together and the spiritual energy we want to share.

Peace: One at Peace, One at a Time, to Universal Peace

From World Peace, (1957) by Sri Swami Sivananda

Only removal of ignorance can stop all future wars and dissensions. Spiritual culture, ethical education, measures that are best calculated to instill love and a sense of unity in men and women can prevent nations from resorting to war. If all people begin to practice kindness and mercy, how can they at the same time stand with weapons and guns in their hands to destroy each other?

Individual peace alone can lead to the establishment of universal peace. May there be peace, plenty and prosperity throughout the whole world!

May all nations be united by the bond of love!

Friends’ Declaration to Charles II (1661)*

We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever. And this is our testimony to the whole world. The spirit of Christ, by which we are guided, is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world.

*quoted from Christian Faith and Practice in the Experience of the Society of Friends (1988, London Yearly Meeting))

Forgiveness - A Skill That Can Be Learned

©2008 Ramona K. Silipo. All rights reserved.

FORGIVE FOR GOOD, by Fred Luskin, subtitled, ‘A Proven Prescription for Health and Happiness,’ is a striking combination research report, case study and handbook. The material is groundbreaking, fascinating and instantly accessible.

In the courses he teaches, Fred Luskin, Ph.D., Director of the Stanford University Forgiveness Project, is absolutely authoritative and professional, without for a moment being dry and academic. His book breathes the same directness and expertise, written in a crisp, homely, very personal style. When the book was published, Dr. Luskin told me that, after he first submitted the manuscript, an editor handed it back to him with voluminous changes, putting everything into ‘proper’ English, taking the life out of it. Fortunately for the reader, he stood his ground and insisted that his own voice remain.

The ease of reading is crucial, because the material can be difficult. Most of us grew up hearing ‘forgive and forget,’ which in our minds connected the act of forgiveness with allowing ourselves to be hurt again and again. To forgive someone, we gathered, meant to ‘overcome’ the hurt, to ‘forget’ and be reconciled to the person who hurt us.

But Dr. Luskin’s work leads us in a different direction. Forgiveness is not condoning unkindness, or forgetting pain, not excusing bad behaviour, denying or minimizing your hurt. Shame, guilt, redemption, reconciliation— those things we learned about in Sunday school, are not necessarily connected with forgiveness. In fact, holding on to those ideas can actually prevent us from moving into a healthier state of mind and body.

His research and practice as a psychologist show that forgiveness is for the forgiver, not the offender. It is, essentially, a decision not to let past pain continue to hurt in your present and future life. It is taking back your personal power, taking responsibility for your emotions. Most important, forgiveness is about healing yourself and not about the people who hurt you. What’s more, and most promising, Luskin’s research shows that forgiveness is skill, one that can be learned just like tying your shoes or doing sums.

The book, throughout, is sprinkled with real life examples drawn from Luskin’s active counselling practice and his own life. His story of how he ‘got into’ studying and teaching forgiveness is at once a self-revealing recount of deep hurt, and an effective lesson in learning how to move past the pain and stop giving it room in one’s life.

Part One of Forgive for Good sets out the elements of grievance, blame and our tendency to take things personally that were never meant that way. The fine art of nursing a grudge is examined, as are the physical, emotional and psychological implications of doing so.

Moving to Part Two, the elements of forgiveness are presented, along with the medical evidence and a dramatic example of the effectiveness of deciding to forgive. In chapter seven, ‘The Science of Forgiveness,’ Luskin distills key research from a number of scientific studies which show that forgiveness improves physical as well as emotional and mental health. Then he gets specific and, in addition to detailing his earlier research, tells us about his work, aptly named HOPE, with mothers from Northern Ireland who lost sons, and a second programme for both men and women who lost family members in ‘the troubles.’

The positive results of the Northern Ireland programmes were deeply gratifying, and, Luskin admits, surprising even to him. He was not confident that his methods could work with people so deeply wounded. But, he concludes, ‘I marvel at the implications of these results. They demonstrate the incredible power of human beings to heal from even the most blatant of horrors. They reinforce my belief that people can learn to forgive.’

Part Three of Forgive for Good is a clear, practicable handbook on the process of forgiveness developed by Dr. Luskin. He is sublimely articulate and complete; the exposition of the material is logical, specific and practical. By working the exercises and techniques in the book, the reader can virtually complete the course Dr. Luskin teaches.

To cite one example, PERT (don’t be misled by the cute acronyms; this is serious work)– Positive Emotion Refocusing Technique. Through it, he says, ‘We gain tremendous confidence when we are suddenly faced with a painful situation or memory and are able to sustain our positive focus. Practising PERT helps us stay calm so we can make good decisions.’ Then Luskin gives detailed, simple instructions for the technique, which is essentially a relaxation and refocusing process that can be learned in less than half an hour.

The final chapter summarizes the process with ‘Nine Steps to Forgiveness.’ The first step is to know what happened, how you feel about it and be able to articulate it.’ Other steps include making a clear decision to do what you need to do to feel better; to give up expecting things from people that they do not choose to give you; and to understand your goal.

Luskin says, ‘What you are after is peace. Forgiveness can be defined as the peace and understanding that come from blaming less that which has hurt you [and] taking the experience less personally.’

Ironically, the final manuscript was ready for publication ten days after the September eleventh debacle in 2001. Luskin’s ‘Note to the Reader’ at the back of the book is alone worth the price of a copy. In part:

To help make sense of the relative importance of forgiveness at this time, think about the balance of a scale. . . On one end, there is vengeance and on the other forgiveness. At first the forgiveness end is up in the air, as it carries little weight against the strong desire for retaliation. . . Forgiveness, not forgetting, not condoning and not reconciling with offenders, is one of the powerful tools that we can use.

TM - Yet more . . .

After fifty years, you’d expect all the kerfuffle over something as personal and relatively non-interactive as TM would have settled down. There are so many more, and more threatening, groups now than 40-50 years ago when TM started in the USA. You’d think people would have lost interest by now.

But the discussion goes on and appears to be endless. I am amazed to note from my “blog stats” that the TM blog of two days ago was more active than the two Tantra entries that have continuously been the most viewed pieces on my page since I started this blog last autumn.

I hope that those who read the blog about detractors of TM are also reading the comments. I find the to-and-fro a bit tedious, but there are some interesting things in those comments. I do wish more readers would weigh in with their experiences. Anyone?

“What is REAL?” asked the Rabbit one day.

The Velveteen Rabbit, by Margery Williams, with gorgeous illustrations by William Nicholson, can truly wear the designation, A Modern Classic. First published in 1922, the original edition is now available again from Doubleday, in their “A Book for Young Readers” series. It’s also available in paperback and in various editions with more contemporary art. I recommend the original, however, because the words and pictures are perfect together.

“What is REAL?” asked the Rabbit one day. “Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?”

“Real isn’t how you are made,” said the Skin Horse. “It’s a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time . . . “

This is a wondrous book to read to the little ones, and one that older children can read to younger siblings.

The story begins at Christmas, when a sweet stuffed rabbit sits atop the boy’s stocking. It becomes a sweet, but not overly sentimental, story about love and loyalty. The philosophy is deep, but not complex, and the nature of love is its center.

I attended a wedding once where The Velveteen Rabbit was the principal reading. It fitted perfectly.

TM Still Challenges–More Than Fifty Years On

©2008, RK Silipo. All rights reserved.

In response to an appreciation of the late Maharish Mahesh Yogi that I posted here, I received an odd, astonishing communication from a self-identified “cult recovery therapist.” Curious, I checked out his web site. He presents quite a repertoire of “roblems which fall under his “specialist” ability to “treat.”

In his opinion, transcendental meditation is dangerous and he views meditators as, at least, misinformed and, at most, seriously ill.

I found this astonishing for a couple of reasons:

• First, I have been practicing TM for over 35 years and have had nothing but positive experiences connected with meditation.

• Second, there are reams and reams of research that show the many positive effect, physical and mental, of TM– from better behaved high school students with better grades, to lowered blood pressure and stress levels.

The most important aspect of meditation for me is the deepening of my spiritual life and my understanding of spirituality. When I first learned TM, I had left the church where I grew up and was pretty much fed up with male-dominated Christianity. Meditation opened my mind and especially my desire to be in a spiritual community. Faith became more important to me again. I learned by experience that tolerance and unconditional love are more important than adherence to a human-made set of canonical rules. My Christianity expanded and grew dynamic rather than stagnating and being rule-bound and complacent. It became a loving faith rather than a judgmental one.

But there were other benefits, too. I had always been shy, nervous of meeting new people and afraid of speaking in public. Within a few weeks of regular meditation, I gained confidence and a kind of ease, even with newly-met people. In fact, friends who knew me well began to comment that I seemed more sure of myself and more outgoing than I used to be– “brighter” was a word they used frequently. Also, I had much more energy when I meditated regularly, and I got a lot more done in a given time period than I had before. The list of this kind of benefit can become long.

So I’m not going to go on and on with a list of great things that happened to me because of TM. But the health benefits are important, so I do mention them now. Meditation helps keep hypertension under control, and I have had this benefit for many years now.

The most astonishing thing on this “therapist’s” web site was his statement that TM is a cult. I laughed out loud when I read that. Anyone who knows anything of TM recalls Maharishi’s term for people who spent too much time around TM centers or who lionized him: “Bliss Ninnies.” They were people who ENTIRELY missed the boat about TM. Its point is to help create balance in life, which is the direct opposite of what those people who go completely overboard are doing.

One of the things that I most liked about Maharishi’s approach (and, later, attracted me to Quakers) was his insistence than meditators follow their own path, know their own religion, and not go off willy nilly on some other track. He taught that spiritual life was important, and he encouraged people to find their own religious niche.

In any group that comprises millions of people, there is always a percentage who are “average,” and a percentage who are either more or less affected by a leader, philosophy or teaching. There are always people who understand the message, and people who get the wrong end of the stick. There is always a percentage of people who are already psychologically unwell when they come to the group; sometimes the problems are helped and sometimes they are exacerbated.

In my 35 years of meditation, I have, indeed, met some very unusual (you might even say odd) people, on both ends of the spectrum– the Bliss Ninnies who made a whole performance of devotion to Maharishi and tried to make him into something he was not and never wanted to be; and the manipulators who used TM to gain political power within the organization and steer it in ways that were not always beneficial. And I have met a few people who needed medical attention and were helped by the organization to get it.

But the vast majority of meditators, just as the vast majority of any large group, fall into a very broad “average” sort of catgory; people who learn what they can from and about meditation and then use it to make their lives and the lives of people around them better.