68. Curing the Criminal

(continued from last post)
It is observed in every society that some of its members do not grow up, so to speak, but remain in a child-like state of irresponsibility. So, the aforementioned “awareness of consequences”, though valuable and necessary, does not seem to be a quality that is evenly distributed amongst the population. And it doesn’t appear that it can be “grown into”, in the ordinary course of events, by every immature person. This particular power of attention is available to some people as an inborn trait.  Can it also be cultivated in those who do not appear to have it?  My personal experience leads me to conclude that it is indeed possible to develop this kind of attention in a systematic, measurable and predictable way.

This is how I observed attention being applied by TM -practicing convicts, in contrast to non-meditating ones: After meditating for some time, as little as one month in some cases or for more than a year in other cases, certain individuals spontaneously improved their behavior; in dramatic contrast to their behavior before learning to meditate. Many of the other meditating subjects displayed more subtle changes in behavior, but again spontaneously and enduringly. In interviews with these subjects, I found a consistent thread of reasoning behind all of the changed behaviors: they knew, while contemplating a course of action, that loss was available as an option, rather than only gain. An instinctive sense of avoidance of loss was beginning to be incorporated into their awarenesses.

Before learning meditation and during the first weeks or months afterwards, their reasoning for action seemed to include only the prospects for gain. It was as if the reality of consequences was an illusion, despite being aware of them on an intellectual level. It was like how we regard hell; it probably exists but we aren’t going to end up in there because we are not that bad. Another kind of awareness appeared to be diminished within the subjects before they learned to meditate: the value of time; of reward gained over time rather than instantly. Immediate gain after an action seemed like the most efficient means of fulfilling desires. And in the absence of “instinctive” awareness of possible loss, this was the only acceptable way to progress.

The attention span of these subjects seemed to become expanded. The usual way that we look at this is by measuring how long one can remain focused on something without being distracted. This utilitarian kind of change may have been due to the calming effect of TM that has been universally found in meditators. In addition to that, I noticed a different kind of expanded attention being displayed: an awareness of future prospects accruing from a behavior that, on its face, appeared to offer no immediate reward. An example would be the simple act of following a house rule that the subject used to break obsessively before he meditated. A growing appreciation for delayed gratification of desires was demonstrated by, for example: giving up some immediate pleasure, such as controlling the TV, in exchange for an indirectly implied and unspecified future privilege.

Desires must be fulfilled for one to feel satisfied in life; that’s a universal law of nature. To comfortably forgo actual fulfillment of a particular desire, an enduring sense of general fulfillment must be present within ones awareness in order to counterbalance the sense of loss (absence of immediate fulfillment). If that “general sense of fulfillment” is not caused by the actual fulfillment of that desire, then it must come from some precursor to “experience”: a non-active level of mind -pure consciousness, by definition.  My conclusion is that a kind of “knowingness” of “potential fulfillment” has filled the psychic void caused by delaying actual fulfillment. Maharishi has described pure consciousness as a “field of total potential”. Nothing exists there, no objects, no actions, no thoughts; but “all possibilities” exist there in an unmanifest state.

If these meditating convicts were contacting that field with their attention, then they were in touch with the fulfillment of previously manifested desires; but that fulfillment was in an undeveloped or abstracted state. Their experience was “as if” the desire was fulfilled before that fulfillment actually became manifest. The void of loss was simultaneously filled by a sense of gain. Analogously, this kind of experience might be routine for those people who invest conservatively in the future. I think that the difference between us and “them” (the convicts) could be regarded simply as a difference in degree of “investment savvy”.

A subtle, abstract sense of fulfillment is not as useless as it might appear; it is the basis for hope. Hope is the driving force behind mighty efforts to overcome obstacles to achievement of ones goals. Hope can influence one to strive, to be patient and to minimize risk. Crimes are committed by those who lack patience and risk-aversion; they strive alright, not in hope, but in desperation. This displays a kind of attention that is limited to the immediate and proximate results of an action. It is the attention of a gambler; and some people are not in a position to gamble with their lives in every decision that they make. The odds are against winning and there is little room for hope. The result is more anxiety for immediate gain and less appreciation of risk and loss.

To sum this up: the convicts who continued to practice TM regularly began to behave more like normal people. A unique and special feature of the various measured and unmeasured improvements was that the subjects developed from within, rather than from without. This is important because they had a sense of authorship of their new insight, so it was “real”. They owned their world-view, rather than merely borrowing it from therapists’ concepts, or from theologians’ beliefs; borrowed just long enough to b. s. the system.

This “creator mentality”, I believe, correlated with another feature of the effects: the durability of the changes over time, despite the absence of reinforcement after the subject was released from jail. This indicates a growth of psychological self-sufficiency; which may have contributed to that same quality in the behavioral arena: facilitating financial independence and avoidance of risk (of criminal behavior). The long-term results for these TM subjects included a dramatic reduction in the rate of recidivism compared to the control group of non-meditating convicts.

A couple of quotations may give this subject some perspective:

“Dreaminess is the great barrier. But most of human consciousness even in this world is in a sort of waking-dreaming or somnambulistic state…The more I have studied the problem, the more I have become convinced that it has been a great mistake to concentrate so much attention upon evil. The real difficulty is the almost universal somnambulism in which men pass the bulk of their lives, some spending many lives without leaving that state at all. It is, in effect, a hypnotic sleep, and the real problem of religion is not the saving of human souls from evil but a dehypnotizing of the mind.”
–-Franklin Merrell-Wolff, 1936

“The newspapers report that I teach a method to help the people to get to sleep; what I am doing is teaching them how to wake up.” —Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, San Francisco, 1959

“Transcendental Meditation is the prisoner’s only friend.” –-Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Hawaii, 1958

67. Why Do Criminals Do It?

(continued from last post)
Attention has been a lively topic in psychology in recent years, what with the sudden proliferation of ADD (attention deficit disorder), especially among the youth. ADD is being blamed for so many behavioral problems that it sounds like the latest medical fad. In a more general sense, attention is what consciousness does. The undirected becomes directed by virtue of the intellect: the decider. But we can’t blame intellect, or lack thereof, for criminal behavior because clever people as well as stupid people commit crimes. Therefore, the ultimate origin of error could not be the decision level itself, although the decision is the error. Some mental status antecedent to deciding has to be deficient: the quality of ones attention; that which cannot be manipulated, but can only be uncovered.

If we humans are generally comparable in our range of expression of mental potential, then full mental potential should be fairly equal for everyone. Let’s assume that human attention is potentially infinite in scope: that it is possible, under the right conditions, that one could be aware of anything and everything. This level of information would enable one to make error-free decisions. (Infallibility is implied in the Vedic definition of enlightenment; a state of consciousness that has a long recorded history.) In conceding that we are not infallible, we can admit that the difference between us and them (convicted criminals) is only by degree, the degree of attention applied to thought and action. In other words, the number of future consequences that can be known, resulting from a particular action, would affect that decision to act. In business it’s called “doing due diligence” before making a deal; it’s just using common sense.

Since Nature demands that all actions, both “positive” and “negative”, be ultimately progressive (evolutionary), then any decision will suffice in the long run, as is the case with animals. When people act without regard for consequences, then they are acting like animals. Society should show these ignorant humans at least as much compassion as they show to animals caught acting within their nature. It is ironic to see people protesting against the treatment of animals in captivity while ignoring similar treatment of caged humans. This “quality of treatment” consideration is more applicable to humans than to animals because we have the capacity to improve, whereas animals do not.  As humans, we have free will and the power to alter our destinies, to erase karma. But we have to become aware of karma in order to deal with it; not merely intellectually aware but instinctively aware.

This instinct is an aspect of the power of attention. Most people have had some experience with instinctively avoiding danger, or of knowing something without actually witnessing it. Fear is a useful instinct, as is shame or embarrassment, in stimulating avoidance behaviors. The extent of ones awareness of possible future outcomes, and of past experiences, seems to be a factor in the decision-making process. Intellectually, one could recall plenty of facts that would influence a decision, but even smart folks make mistakes; so intellect can’t be the prime factor. The “hows” and “whys” of past events, present circumstances and future consequences cannot be comprehended by the intellect. Maharishi once stated that “Karma is unfathomable, even by the enlightened.”

To avoid error, what is required is a general awareness of the collective effect of the virtually infinite variables of karma; a kind of knowingness that is not limited to any particular point in space and time. This would not be attention given to a single object, but to a field of objects simultaneously. That is the very description of transcending: Attention moving from action to silence, from a limited point-by-point focus to unlimited awareness of an infinite field. That state is usually experienced as quietness and peacefulness in its earliest manifestation; and that’s good enough for our present consideration. The most important factor is to allow the mind to be exposed to such a state. After that, nature takes over and provides whatever is needed at that time.

What makes us different from them is our more expanded level of awareness of possible consequences resulting from action. This advantage is something that we are born with rather than taught. A person born into a life-damaging environment, if equipped with this advantage, can more easily rise above those external influences. A life-supporting environment makes this advantage easier to sustain. On the other hand, we have seen or heard about people from the best families go “down the tubes” because they were not born with enough of this awareness, despite having a life-supporting environment. This consideration of awareness is not meant to suggest that genetics determines behavior because the influence of karma extends well beyond genetics.

As normal people, we take it for granted that our decisions are fairly safe and will result in some progress, either in the short or the long term. The consequences of mistaken decisions have been relatively mild for the most part. A certain level of error is deemed acceptable because we believe that the future is not totally in our hands, but determined either by a higher power or society or global political/ economic trends. I contend that the convicts I worked with were thinking just like this before they were caught in crime. Afterwards, they felt bitterness, self-pity and denial over their punishment for “one mistake”. They thought that they were making progress; but that experience of error-plus-consequence did not improve their level of awareness and no lasting lesson was learned. This is why most return to jail again and again. For a very few inmates, fear-based avoidance behavior (negative reinforcement) may alter their future course of action and keep them out of jail.

The suggested “normal” perspective, described in the preceding paragraph, does not facilitate the same results for everyone; so the perspective itself is not to blame for any shortcomings experienced. The breadth of ones awareness, which precipitates that perspective, is to blame. For example, a child playing in his crib possesses that same normal perspective, but it is based upon a limited awareness of the real world. We cannot say that he is wrong for feeling secure and hopeful, even impetuous, in his decision-making. But from our expanded world-view as adults, we would question his bravado and scrutinize his decisions. We are obliged to protect him from possible unforeseen consequences resulting from his acting out of an illusion of invincibility.

The level of consciousness that society embodies is like that of the adult, in relation to the child-like consciousness of its less responsible members. The criminals who end up in jail are like the children who are confined to cribs provided by their protectors. The misbehavers who have not yet been caught are like kids who are supposed to stay in their back yards but decide to play in the street, despite knowing that they become eligible for the crib. As we know and have personally experienced, kids do grow up and expand their awareness of the world; eventually becoming adults—supposedly the epitome of advancement. (To be continued)