ego

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
Barbara 2004

ego - ses/sop techniques

Postby Barbara 2004 » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:21 pm

In four years I was taught a total of about 15 mental/psychological techniques to modify individual thought processes, attitudes and behaviours. These techniques were practiced whenever remembered or possible.

We were asked to recall these things one week, and I wrote them down. I have a list somewhere. Some of the techniques are pretty harmless, and have little effect other then wasting mental energy. Others are possibly Buddhist practices translated into English (so wouldn't work as such - a technical thing); and others border on mind-splitting !!

The only integrating and harmonizing technique was the 'meditation which is transcendental'. However it was not taught to the standard of the orginal technique (Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation), and the follow-up support in the form of 'checks' ranged from pretty good to terrible (technically incorrect). In fact I only met one person with anything like an ablity to check !! I think the school are now on a 4th generation version of early 1960's TM - so it is bound to have lost purity. and is probably technically out of date. (1st gen Maharishi to 2nd Gen Dr R, to 3rd gen Mr W, to 4th gen Various).

Dr R is the person in the 'Good Company' book. (comprising translations and interpretations of some of the answers to some of the questions Dr R and others asked His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati between 1961 and 1985). Having learned TM from Maharishi, and gone through some TM teacher training, Dr R is asking Sankacarya (of Jyotir Math) why he doesn't appear to have transcended yet (that place of no place, where there is nothing to report back). Sankaracarya explains it all again, (several times in different ways) and suggests Dr R goes back to visit his TM teacher and have a check. I don't think Dr R ever made it, but his successor might have done eventually.

Christoph

mind splitting

Postby Christoph » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 pm

others border on mind-splitting !!


I've never come across anything that dramatic! Mind you, I have read all the Carlos Castaneda books, so anything judged in comparison with them is pretty tame.

I do agree that most people in the School are not 'transcended' or anything like it. A few of them are what Scientologists would call very 'clear', which I suppose anyone can be, after years of following personal development techniques.

TB

Response to Dan and Christoph exchange

Postby TB » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:06 am

My post is to comment on the exchange between Dan and Christoph where there was strong criticism about Dan regurgitating SES speak
Christoph, you really do write a lot of old guff. You are regurgitating the SES idiocy of latching onto terms like ego in an unscientific way. Can't you come up with your own theories of self help, can't you think originally and come up with your own words to explain your personality/situation. You use this ridiculous SES terminology as if it's perfectly acceptable e.g 'throw away the old ego'


While I do agree that Christoph is using terms and thinking from SES, Quakers etc, I have to ask where Dan thinks his 'own' ideas come from. The terms you use, ie. the English language itself, the use of computers and the internet, are all borrowed or imitated system from your peers. Your political opinions, clothing, mannerisms, even the idea that one should 'learn to think for yourself' have all been subtly conditioned by your social environment. I take no issue with your comments on Christoph and his penchant for things SES, although you have probably not tested them for yourself, however I do take issue with the assumption that you expect of others (and presumably yourself) to somehow have autonomous, spontaneous 'own thoughts'. Still your view, of itself, does demonstrate just how total the immersion of the individual has become into the collective human mind. Why do we think it so wrong to be mindless automatons? Our dawning bland, homogenous society would not be possible otherwise, peace would ever be unlikely, 'bad' concepts like racism would flourish. Our concept of individuality is only possible within the narrow confines of what society allows.

For the record Christoph I view the SES teachings in the terms as you do, while adding some diversity, however do not dare label me as an individual with a mind of my own or anything like autonomy. Blending rules OK.


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests