THE BASIC CONFLICT BETWEEN MAHARISHI AND CHRISTIANITY

Following is the 1984 Pastoral statement of His Eminence Jaime Cardinal
Sin, Archbishop of Manila, on certain doctrinal aspects of the Maharishi
Technology of the Unified Field, held after consultation with theological
experts.

The Maharishi's doctrine and teaching on (1) God, (2) man, (3) the way to
go to God, (4) pain and suffering, and (5) sin is in open contradiction to
Christian Doctrine.

1. The "God" of the Maharishi is impersonal, as opposed to the God
manifested in Christian revelation where God is a personal God who loves
each human person in an intimate way.

    By denying the Creator as Supreme and teaching that "All is
    One," Maharishi removes the distinction between the Creator and
    the creature.  This directly leads to, or is an equivalent form
    of, pantheism.

    The "mantras" given to the followers of the Maharishi have been
    discovered to be invocations, in most of the cases, to deities
    of the Hindu pantheon, thus in a real sense denying the oneness
    of God and fostering polytheism.

2. Man is considered capable of attaining unlimited perfection, of being
totally liberated from all pain and suffering through the instrumentality
of Transcendental Meditation practiced in the Maharishi way. Similarly
through this, TM, man can find solution to all human problems ranging from
control of the elements to the attainment of indestructibility and
immortality.

    Two flaws, among others, appear clearly in this doctrine: (a) It
    does not accept the immortality of the soul, nor life beyond, as
    belonging to the nature of the soul; (b) ignores completely the
    existence of original sin, a Christian dogma, and the
    consequences for the realities of life.

3. The way to God is placed by Maharishi in TM as understood by him, his
books, and his followers, and it is placed on TM as the exclusive way to
God.

    Two flaws, again, are hidden in these affirmations: (a) the
    abuse of the term TM which has been appropriated by them as if
    theirs was "the" TM par excellence, the only authentic one
    (there is Christian mysticism, even authors speak of Hindu and
    Buddhist mysticism, and certainly there is also the well-known
    za-zen method of meditation); and (b) the way to God in the
    present economy for all is the way of the Cross as long as we
    are pilgrims, as explicitly preached by Christ himself, accepted
    in Christian doctrine and life. The heroism of Christian
    faithful suffering with the greatest courage and dignity appears
    to be absent in the Maharishi way to God.

4. Implicit in the Maharishi approach to the problem of pain and suffering
is the rejection of the redemptive value of suffering and of the existence
of Christ as the Redeemer. In fact, Maharishi in his book, Meditations of
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (New York, Bantam Books, 1968, p.23), writes
explicitly: "I don't think Christ ever suffered or Christ could suffer."
(This statement has been repeated in many places by the Maharishi
followers.)

5. Sin. Maharishi tries to ignore the existence of sin. In this, Maharishi
follows the Vedic doctrine that regards sin as a bodily matter and has
nothing to do with the spirit or soul of man. The whole concept of "sin,"
if implicitly accepted, is considered as something external and
legalistic. The real sense of freedom and responsibility is absent, and
the "effects" of sin are the object of rituals, mantras, and TM. There is
no interior conversion, but a rather manipulative use of TM to attain
liberations.

    At the basis of this concept and approach is the concept of God,
    man, the way to God, pain and suffering, described above. From
    this point of view, one cannot be a Christian and a Maharishi.

6. As for TM, it may be considered as doctrine (content) or as technique
(method). From this point of view of doctrine it is not acceptable to a
Catholic, or a Christian at that. As for TM as technique, in the way the
Maharishi group presents it, it is not acceptable either because of its
intrinsic connections with the doctrine (cf. "mantras" and 1 and 2 above).

    This kind of TM is to be distinguished from various forms of
    prayer proper to the Oriental religious attitudes, some of which
    may be acceptable, and even beneficial, if properly scrutinized
    and used. TM, however, as proposed by Maharishi and as the
    end-result looked at by the Maharishi doctrine and followers,
    is, to say the least, quite risky. It becomes not a remedy but
    an escape. Its unavoidable result, within the Maharishi doctrine
    context, is the desensitization of conscience by trying to
    relieve not the guilt and the real disorder but only its
    symptoms and its accompanying restlessness.


    This document was taken from "Todays Destructive Cults and
    Movements," by Rev.  Lawrence J. Gesy, available from Our Sunday
    Visitor Press, 200 Noll Plaza, Huntington, IN 46750.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------
  The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
  Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1994.
  Provided courtesy of:

       The Catholic Resource Network
       Trinity Communications
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336

  The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and
  service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data
  bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.
  -------------------------------------------------------------------