Please note: This is a four-part series. "Revisiting TM Initiation, Part 1," was posted 11/11/2008. "Revisiting TM Initiation, Part 3: The Mantra" was posted 12/5/08. "Revisiting TM Initiation, Part 4: Bowing Down" was published 1/1/2009.
The initiator finishes instructing the initiate, and he leaves. The initiator is now alone.
The initiator is striken with a bout of conscience. "Good heavens!" she thinks to herself. "I told that initiate one lie after another. I thought I was a person of integrity. I'm ashamed of myself. I've got to turn over a new leaf. I hereby promise myself that from this moment forward, while keeping my promises to Maharishi, I will also be truthful with my initiates."
There is a knock at the door. The next initiate enters with his basket. They both sit down.
Fantasy Initiation #2:
Question from initiate: Is it OK if I ask you a few questions as I'm learning?
Answer from initiator: Sure.
Q: Why do you do the ceremony of gratitude in the traditional way? Why don't you express gratitude in a Western way?
A: Well, Maharishi said that to assure the purity of the teaching of TM, we should start with this traditional ceremony.
Q: But you do so many other things that deviate from the tradition, that are the Western way.
A: You're right. Maharishi was very strict about us wearing Western clothes - he forbade us from wearing Indian costumes when representing TM. And he told the men that they were absolutely not to grow their hair long in imitation of him - they had to keep their hair cut short. Also he modified the traditional meditation posture into sitting in a chair to make it comfortable for Westerners. And he was insistent that we use Western scientific research to sell TM. He changed the language from traditional "God" to "Creative Intelligence" to make it more Western. So you're right - I really can't prove to you that the traditional way is essential.
Q: You said in the preparatory lecture that the reason you do the ceremony is to remind yourself to teach TM in its purity, accurately. Why do you have to remind yourself? My school teachers taught me all sorts of things accurately, without a big reminder priming themselves to teach it accurately. Isn't it enough to just have a minimum level of integrity?
A: Well, when I was learning to be a TM teacher, Maharishi told us to tell the public something different from what was the real reason for the ceremony. He said that when the initiator invokes all those great teachers or gods during the puja -
Q: Gods? Didn't you assure us that this wasn't a religious ceremony?
A: Yes, that's what I said, but there are gods named in the puja.
Q: And didn't you assure us that TM wasn't a religious technique?
A: Well, yes, it isn't. Anyhow, when the initiator invokes the names of the gods and masters, it sort of enlivens the room with the qualities of those beings -
Q: What are you talking about? This sounds like some weird spiritualist religion.
A: Oh, no, it's not a religion. TM is a simple natural non-religious technique. Anyhow, when the initiator invokes the names of the gods and masters, it sort of conjures up the essence of those beings, and Maharishi said that the initiator takes on some of the qualities of those beings -
Q: It sounds like Maharishi trained you to be a medium. It sounds like you're channeling these creatures. Now you're taking on their qualities. Do you think you're "possessed?"
A: Of course not. I continue to say the words I had planned to say; I don't find myself speaking the being's words.
Q: I don't believe in this conjuring stuff. To put it in Western terms, don't you think it would be accurate to say that you go into an altered, highly suggestible state?
A: I've never heard that. But anyhow, when the initiator is vibrating with the qualities of the gods and masters, in that state, we can teach TM properly.
Q: You said in the introductory lectures that TM is a mechanical technique that uses the natural tendency of the mind to go to increasing charm. If it's such a natural technique, why do you have to go into an altered state in order to teach it properly?
A: Maharishi told us on Teacher Training that when the initiator is in that state, the initiate becomes sort of in awe of or intimidated by the initiator, sort of like "cat and mouse" were his words. If the initiator does something, the initiate does it back.
Initiate: That sounds nefarious. It sounds like you're trying to control me. Why can't I just follow your instructions of my own free will, because I want to learn? Why do you have to entrance me into obeying you?
A: I don't know. Maharishi didn't cover that point.
Q: You told us that the ceremony is just a reminder for yourself. But you want me in a suggestible state, right? That's why I have to be present, right?
A: Well, I wouldn't put it that way.
Q: Well, does the puja do anything else aside from supposedly making you resonate with these beings and making me compliant?
A: Well, during the ceremony, I sing out loud in Sanskrit as I simultaneously translate it into English in my head. Then there's a certain point where I start offering objects to the painting of Guru Dev in a very prescribed way. And at the same time, I am supposed to be thinking prescribed "puja feelings" that the actions and words are supposed to be inspiring in me. Like when I am offering water, I am supposed to be thinking of feeling "I feel an upsurge of purifying waves of knowledge." So I am doing four things at once.
Q: Yeah, so what's the point?
A: Maharishi said that the purpose of thinking the "puja feelings" was to amplify the feelings that I was already having.
Q: What's wrong with the feelings you're having naturally? Why do you have to amplify them?
A: I don't know.
Q: So Maharishi wants you to amplify your feelings. You mean talking yourself into feeling an emotion strongly that you may only feel slightly?
A: Yeah, I guess so. Embroidering. Embellishing. Mood-making. It's strange, because Maharishi had such contempt for, and taught us the worthlessness of, what he termed "mood-making." That was the term he used for when people kidded themselves that they were having a spiritual experience. He used the term contemptuously for people who claimed spiritual experiences but did not practice TM. And here he was encouraging us to "mood make."
Q: Well, did you find it successfully amplified your feelings?
A: No. Most of the time I find it sort of disorienting, because it's not easy to keep two thoughts going at the exact same time. (I don't know if other initiators have that same problem. ) Even though he said it was a "feeling," we had to memorize the feeling as specific words. I think it made me sort of woozy. By the end of the puja, I am thoroughly zonked.
Q: Why would Maharishi want you in an altered state by the end of the puja?
A: He said that between invoking the beings to possess some of their qualities, and amplifying the feelings, we get into a deep state, and it is from there that we "pick up" the mantra. Then when we impart it to the initiate, we are "planting" the mantra, and it heads right back inward from whence it came, thus facilitating the inward direction of the meditation.
Q: Wait a minute. In the preparatory lecture, you said that the mantra moves inward due to the natural tendency of the mind to seek increasing charm. Now you're giving me this mumbo jumbo that the mind moves inward because with the help of these beings and your trance state, you have dug up the mantra from some esoteric realm and the mantra wants to go back there. This doesn't make any sense to me, and it certainly doesn't square with what you told us, that this is scientific and non-religious. You have a whole esoteric spiritual teaching going on here. So Maharishi told you that you virtually channel these creatures, and that you and the initiate go into a hypnotic state?
A: Isn't it strange that you should put it that way; because at the end of the teacher training course, he told us there were two things we should specifically avoid: channeling and hypnosis. Well, do you have any more questions? No? OK, then shall we begin?
- End -
(Note: The author attended TM Teacher Training in La Antilla, Spain in 1974, and is using those experiences to inform this article. People on other Teacher Training courses may have learned different things.)
Showing posts with label Affect. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Affect. Show all posts
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Book Review. In the Shadow of Fame: A Memoir by the Daughter of Erik H. Erikson by Sue Erikson Bloland, 2005, 219 pages.
Commentors and contributors to TM-Free have been recommending relevant books for some time. I have recently read a few of these, and thought you might enjoy some book reviews. This review is fourth in a series.
Erik H. Erikson, Ph.D., was a renowned psychologist of the "second generation" after Freud. He was a child psychologist, author and theorist. He added to Freud's theories by positing that the social and cultural environment, and not only the intrapsychic environment (inner drives, etc.) influence the child and help determine what sort of strengths and weaknesses the individual will come to have. He also disagreed with Freud regarding the developmental stages of human life, replacing Freud's "psychosexual stages of development" (oral, anal, phallic stages) with "psychosocial stages" (hope, will, purpose, competence, etc.) Therapists today tend to favor Erikson's, rather than Freud's, theory of developmental stages.
This is the autobiography of Erik H. Erikson's daughter, who grew up in the giant shadow cast by a man idolized by the psychological community of his day. His public face, seen through movies, lectures, interviews, and books, radiated a "compassionate paternal authority" as the "quintessential parent and provider of emotional nourishment to the young." But Bloland grew up with the "real" Erikson, and he was very different.
Bloland went on to become a psychologist herself, and her life experience "in the shadow" of her father led her to specialize in the study of fame. Here are some of the things she discovered:
1. A person's public face can be very different from their private face.
2. They can exhibit greatness in their public life and mediocrity in their private life.
3. Fame does not heal core issues, such as loneliness and insecurity.
4. Fame does not imply inner greatness.
5. Unresolved issues can lie surprisingly close to the person's area of expertise.
Bloland got to see the all-too-human side of her father, who was a distant and mediocre parent. He was insecure and uncomfortable in social situations, and most comfortable and capable of intimacy only when he was at work or discussing his work. He had low self-esteem, didn't turn to therapists when he had personal problems, and lied to his children to save himself the awkwardness of having to deal with their feelings.
Bloland also observed a "system" by which people were eager to idealize Erikson as a godlike figure. Sometimes when she introduced herself to psychologists as Eric H. Erikson's daughter, they would say, "May I touch you?" Erikson abetted their idealization because he was brought to life by their adoration. The family also abetted in preserving his public image. Bloland's mother, for example, would not confide freely to her best friend because "it would hurt Dad's reputation."
Bloland discovered that sometimes fame is an outcome of a painful childhood. While childhood trauma often makes people less functional, sometimes it causes the child to bury him/herself in a study or practice in order to avoid the intolerability of home life. Mikhail Baryshnikov, the ballet dancer, who was raised by his curt, cold soldier father, is an example of this. Or sometimes a child will fanatically pursue a field in order to make a connection with a parent who is otherwise unavailable. Charlie Chaplin fell into this catagory, pursuing acting to connect to his mother, who was an actress before she descended into mental illness.
Fame can be an addiction. It produces a "high." The public's adoration can temporarily fill the void left by parental neglect. The comedian Jerry Lewis reported that applause sounded like "Good baby, good baby." But like other drugs, the sense of well-being only lasts briefly, and then the person is left to face their inner pain again. They need another dose; and like other addictive substances, the person needs ever larger doses to feed their emptiness. They never feel they've ever really made it, (although they believe their role models have.) For that reason, retirement is problematic for them, for they never have a sense that enough has been accomplished.
Fame does not provide healing, because the person experiences the fame as directed towards their public persona, not their true being. On the other hand, even minor criticism, is experienced as a critique of the real self. The more spectacular the grandiose image, the more self-contempt and shame the person may feel for the extent of their duplicity.
The anthropologist and philosopher Ernest Becker wrote in his book The Denial of Death, "We must have heroes...because the real world is simply too terrible to face without them." We are born helpless and vulnerable. It is intolerable to believe that our parents will not protect us. Idealization lets us feel safe enough to grow and discover our real self. But the people we idealize are only slightly different from ourselves. The price we pay, noted Erich Fromm, the social psychologist and philosopher, is that we diminish our belief in ourselves, which heightens our anxiety and helplessness.
Bloland says that we never fully lose the tendency to idealize others. Despite her expertise on fame, she found she could hardly breathe when she met Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Bloland suggests that what we need to do is to continue to examine our idealizations, and ponder how they may be inhibiting our growth. She says a particularly useful approach is to notice our anger at how our idealization deprives us of ourselves.
Erik H. Erikson, Ph.D., was a renowned psychologist of the "second generation" after Freud. He was a child psychologist, author and theorist. He added to Freud's theories by positing that the social and cultural environment, and not only the intrapsychic environment (inner drives, etc.) influence the child and help determine what sort of strengths and weaknesses the individual will come to have. He also disagreed with Freud regarding the developmental stages of human life, replacing Freud's "psychosexual stages of development" (oral, anal, phallic stages) with "psychosocial stages" (hope, will, purpose, competence, etc.) Therapists today tend to favor Erikson's, rather than Freud's, theory of developmental stages.
This is the autobiography of Erik H. Erikson's daughter, who grew up in the giant shadow cast by a man idolized by the psychological community of his day. His public face, seen through movies, lectures, interviews, and books, radiated a "compassionate paternal authority" as the "quintessential parent and provider of emotional nourishment to the young." But Bloland grew up with the "real" Erikson, and he was very different.
Bloland went on to become a psychologist herself, and her life experience "in the shadow" of her father led her to specialize in the study of fame. Here are some of the things she discovered:
1. A person's public face can be very different from their private face.
2. They can exhibit greatness in their public life and mediocrity in their private life.
3. Fame does not heal core issues, such as loneliness and insecurity.
4. Fame does not imply inner greatness.
5. Unresolved issues can lie surprisingly close to the person's area of expertise.
Bloland got to see the all-too-human side of her father, who was a distant and mediocre parent. He was insecure and uncomfortable in social situations, and most comfortable and capable of intimacy only when he was at work or discussing his work. He had low self-esteem, didn't turn to therapists when he had personal problems, and lied to his children to save himself the awkwardness of having to deal with their feelings.
Bloland also observed a "system" by which people were eager to idealize Erikson as a godlike figure. Sometimes when she introduced herself to psychologists as Eric H. Erikson's daughter, they would say, "May I touch you?" Erikson abetted their idealization because he was brought to life by their adoration. The family also abetted in preserving his public image. Bloland's mother, for example, would not confide freely to her best friend because "it would hurt Dad's reputation."
Bloland discovered that sometimes fame is an outcome of a painful childhood. While childhood trauma often makes people less functional, sometimes it causes the child to bury him/herself in a study or practice in order to avoid the intolerability of home life. Mikhail Baryshnikov, the ballet dancer, who was raised by his curt, cold soldier father, is an example of this. Or sometimes a child will fanatically pursue a field in order to make a connection with a parent who is otherwise unavailable. Charlie Chaplin fell into this catagory, pursuing acting to connect to his mother, who was an actress before she descended into mental illness.
Fame can be an addiction. It produces a "high." The public's adoration can temporarily fill the void left by parental neglect. The comedian Jerry Lewis reported that applause sounded like "Good baby, good baby." But like other drugs, the sense of well-being only lasts briefly, and then the person is left to face their inner pain again. They need another dose; and like other addictive substances, the person needs ever larger doses to feed their emptiness. They never feel they've ever really made it, (although they believe their role models have.) For that reason, retirement is problematic for them, for they never have a sense that enough has been accomplished.
Fame does not provide healing, because the person experiences the fame as directed towards their public persona, not their true being. On the other hand, even minor criticism, is experienced as a critique of the real self. The more spectacular the grandiose image, the more self-contempt and shame the person may feel for the extent of their duplicity.
The anthropologist and philosopher Ernest Becker wrote in his book The Denial of Death, "We must have heroes...because the real world is simply too terrible to face without them." We are born helpless and vulnerable. It is intolerable to believe that our parents will not protect us. Idealization lets us feel safe enough to grow and discover our real self. But the people we idealize are only slightly different from ourselves. The price we pay, noted Erich Fromm, the social psychologist and philosopher, is that we diminish our belief in ourselves, which heightens our anxiety and helplessness.
Bloland says that we never fully lose the tendency to idealize others. Despite her expertise on fame, she found she could hardly breathe when she met Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Bloland suggests that what we need to do is to continue to examine our idealizations, and ponder how they may be inhibiting our growth. She says a particularly useful approach is to notice our anger at how our idealization deprives us of ourselves.
I read this book wondering if it could give me some insight into Maharishi. Does Maharishi match the template of someone pathologically driven by the hunger for fame? Like Erikson, Maharishi's charismatic, saintly public face differed greatly from his "off-duty" persona. I had to read comments from former members of his staff to learn what an "average," "human" sort of person he was in private.
Like Bloland's family, we who idealized Maharishi covered for him to keep him looking good. We didn't ask him the embarrassing questions, we made excuses for his inconsistent behavior. Like Erikson's admirers, we thought his touch could bless. "Will you touch my coral beads?"
Like Bloland's fame seekers, Maharishi never felt he had accomplished enough. He kept adding ideas, teachings, beliefs, organizations, titles, plans to his movement. Two months before his death at age 89, he was still expanding his dream. Like other famous people, he believed that his role model, Guru Dev, had achieved true greatness. (Incidentally, Guru Dev did not seem afflicted by the hunger for fame.)
Did Maharishi experience criticism to be directed at his true self, as Bloland writes? Possibly. I recall on my Teacher Training Course in 1974, a student told Maharishi that Maharishi was mistaken about something. Maharishi drew himself up to his full height and anger flamed from his eyes. "I?! I am mistaken about something?!" he demanded.
Bloland noted that a great deceiver feels shame around their deception. Could this explain why Maharishi felt contempt for those who idolized him?
Bloland says that sometimes fame springs from an unhappy childhood. We know little about Maharishi's childhood, but we do know that he had an older brother who was so bullying that Maharishi left home at an early age to live with an uncle.
Finally, Bloland notes that unresolved issues can lie surprisingly close to the area of expertise. I am reminded that, despite Maharishi's supposed expertise in the area of ayurvedic medicine, when he had a heart attack, he turned to western medicine.
So what do you think? What need or needs drove Maharishi? The desire for fame? The desire for power? Sex? Money? To feel loved? To feel like a good person? To spiritually uplift humanity? To create world peace? Revenge? What?
Friday, April 13, 2007
Depersonalization and Meditation
In "Psychiatry," Vol, 53, May 1990,
" Deikman and Kennedy reported cases in which depersonalization and derealization occured in individuals practicing meditative techniques designed to alter consciousness. Deikman's cases reported depersonalization and derealization during meditation practice. Kennedy's cases reported these conditions in waking consciousness. In order to determine whether experiences of depersonalization and derealization were occuring in the waking consciousness of meditators, six practioners of Transcendental Meditation (TM) were engaged in daily activity. All of the persons interviewed reported having at least one experience of what could be classified as depersonalization.
DSM -II-R (APA 1087) defones depersonalization as ; "(1) an experience of being a if detatched from and an outside observer of one's mental processes of body; of (2) an experience of feeling like an automaton or as if in a dream." (p.276) Typically, depersonalizatrion is a state in which an individual experiences a "split" in consciousness between a "participating self" and and "observing self." The participating self is composed of body, thoughts, feelings, memories, and emotions. The observing self is experienced as a separate, uninvolved "witness" of the participating self, with the perception that all of the normal aspects of personality are somehow unreal and do not belong to the observing self. There is the experience of being split off from one's participating self and "watching' that self behave.
...
There are also secondary characteristics fo depersonalization, which may include; feelings of dizziness, floating, of giddiness, a feeling of the participating self being "dead," a loss of affective responsiveness, and a feeling of calm detatchment."
* * * * *
As a past heavy meditaor and teacher of TM, I will say that these descriptions of depersonalization were regarded as desirable and a positive result of meditation. In fact the very term "witnessing" is used to describe what is regarded as an advanced level of meditative practice, and the meaning of this word is identical to what the researchers say it is: a kind of observing oneself in action rather than feeling completely involved or completely engaged in what you are doing.
I personally never experienced feelings of dizziness. I had lots of giddiness at the end of the days on teacher training courses; I thought this was like the joy that monastic nuns feel at the end of their quiet days of prayer, and actually enjoyed these times of laughing with at least one friend I had on a course; Pam Brudo. We had fun laughing and joking in her room often at the end of the day; she was a friend of mine there. But in reflecting on my behaviour after coming home at the time, when I practiced just twice a day (TM)meditation, I would say that I was much less responsive to human acts of kindess or humor than I am now. I laugh all the time now, unless I am feeling depressed. If I feel disconnected nowadays, I am aware of it, and I don't like it.
" Deikman and Kennedy reported cases in which depersonalization and derealization occured in individuals practicing meditative techniques designed to alter consciousness. Deikman's cases reported depersonalization and derealization during meditation practice. Kennedy's cases reported these conditions in waking consciousness. In order to determine whether experiences of depersonalization and derealization were occuring in the waking consciousness of meditators, six practioners of Transcendental Meditation (TM) were engaged in daily activity. All of the persons interviewed reported having at least one experience of what could be classified as depersonalization.
DSM -II-R (APA 1087) defones depersonalization as ; "(1) an experience of being a if detatched from and an outside observer of one's mental processes of body; of (2) an experience of feeling like an automaton or as if in a dream." (p.276) Typically, depersonalizatrion is a state in which an individual experiences a "split" in consciousness between a "participating self" and and "observing self." The participating self is composed of body, thoughts, feelings, memories, and emotions. The observing self is experienced as a separate, uninvolved "witness" of the participating self, with the perception that all of the normal aspects of personality are somehow unreal and do not belong to the observing self. There is the experience of being split off from one's participating self and "watching' that self behave.
...
There are also secondary characteristics fo depersonalization, which may include; feelings of dizziness, floating, of giddiness, a feeling of the participating self being "dead," a loss of affective responsiveness, and a feeling of calm detatchment."
* * * * *
As a past heavy meditaor and teacher of TM, I will say that these descriptions of depersonalization were regarded as desirable and a positive result of meditation. In fact the very term "witnessing" is used to describe what is regarded as an advanced level of meditative practice, and the meaning of this word is identical to what the researchers say it is: a kind of observing oneself in action rather than feeling completely involved or completely engaged in what you are doing.
I personally never experienced feelings of dizziness. I had lots of giddiness at the end of the days on teacher training courses; I thought this was like the joy that monastic nuns feel at the end of their quiet days of prayer, and actually enjoyed these times of laughing with at least one friend I had on a course; Pam Brudo. We had fun laughing and joking in her room often at the end of the day; she was a friend of mine there. But in reflecting on my behaviour after coming home at the time, when I practiced just twice a day (TM)meditation, I would say that I was much less responsive to human acts of kindess or humor than I am now. I laugh all the time now, unless I am feeling depressed. If I feel disconnected nowadays, I am aware of it, and I don't like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)