Defendants also contend that
[w]hile the textbook attempts to describe certain qualities of creative intelligence, it contains nothing intended or understood as inherently religious. Thus, attributes such as loving, just, gentle, strong, efficient, kind, clean, purifying, "a person of full heart," self-sustaining and self-sufficient, are simply human qualities that develop as a result of personal growth.
Jarvis Affidavit P. 41. These statements again diverge substantially from what is stated in the textbook. While it may be true that these qualities do develop in an individual as a result of personal growth, the textbook attributes these "simply human qualities," with the exception of "a person of full heart," to a nonhuman, unmanifest, uncreated "concrete reality," T at 250. E.g., T at 214-222, T at 100-107, T at 108-117, T at 222-229. Creative intelligence not only is loving, just, gentle, strong, efficient, kind, clean, purifying, and self-sufficient, but also possesses these qualities, and all other qualities in the universe, e.g., T at 36, 292, in their pure and infinite or "unbounded" states.
Defendants state that
[t]he fact that the textbook mentions that creative intelligence is "the basis of all growth and progress" does not warrant the inference that it is the Creator of the universe. Rather, it is the basis of all growth and progress in a similar sense that physics considers matter and energy to be the basic elements of everything. In addition, concepts such as energy and gravity go "on and on;" however, they are not understood as creators of the universe.
Jarvis Affidavit P. 35. Once again, defendants' statements differ substantially from what is stated in the textbook and their analogy is poorly drawn and unpersuasive. While the textbook does state that "[c]reative intelligence is at the basis of all growth and progress," T at 19, this statement must be read in conjunction with the many other assertions in the textbook concerning creative intelligence. The textbook states that creative intelligence is the source of "all existence," T at 171. Creative intelligence is the eternal, "nonchanging basis of life," T at 242, and "the source of all creativity," T at 243. The laws of nature themselves. "which are directly responsible for the creation, maintenance, and evolution of everything in the universe," T at 242, are merely "currents of creative intelligence." T at 110. Creative intelligence uses these laws of nature, or currents of creative intelligence, when creative intelligence creates the manifest universe: "When we investigate more closely the mechanics of manifestation, we find that creative intelligence creates by means of certain traditions, certain specific laws, which themselves are nonchanging. There are innumerable laws of nature functioning at every level of life...." T at 242. "The endless creative activity of creative intelligence takes place within the traditional structure of the laws of nature and is ultimately founded on the most fundamental field of life--the unmanifest field of pure creative intelligence." T at 240. The textbook instructs that "everything in creation is nothing other than the expression of unmanifest creative intelligence...." T at 260. Creative intelligence "structures the blueprint of life in our genes...." T at 171. According to the textbook, "[t]he ultimate reality of every object is unmanifest creative intelligence. Every object, every expressed value in the phenomenal world, is an expression of the nonexpressed, unbounded value of creative intelligence." T at 154.
Creative intelligence thus is not merely "the basis of all growth and progress," but also is the eternal, nonchanging "source of all creativity and the source of 'all existence;'" the textbook continues this theme by stating that "everything in creation is nothing other than the expression of unmanifest creative intelligence...." T at 260.
Defendants' attempt at analogizing creative intelligence to matter and energy, Jarvis Affidavit P. 35, is as weak and unpersuasive as defendants' previously discussed analogies and comparisons. Neither matter nor energy has more than the tiniest fraction of the characteristics of creative intelligence. Neither matter nor energy is bliss-consciousness or unbounded awareness or a field of "unlimited power, energy, existence, intelligence, peace, and happiness," as is creative intelligence, according to the textbook. E.g., T at 121, 262, 102. Neither matter nor energy possess the "simply human qualities," Jarvis Affidavit P. 41, of creative intelligence. Neither matter nor energy engages in the variegated activities which are conducted by creative intelligence. For example, neither matter nor energy "is always unfolding greater levels of happiness within us," nor are they "always refining our thinking, perception, and action to give clear, truthful expression to the nature of life," as creative intelligence does, to name but a couple of the multitude of activities attributed to creative intelligence by the textbook. T at 144, 74.
Defendants also state that "[e]lectricity, the wheel, the printing press and water can each be considered to be at the basis of all growth and progress within different contexts, yet none can properly be considered the Creator of the Universe." Harned Affidavit 1128. In this statement, defendants passingly mention a crucial consideration, which is the obvious observation that words take their meaning from the context in which they are used. The textbook speaks of creative intelligence only in terms of universality and illimitability. For example, the textbook states that creative intelligence "expresses itself throughout the entire universe. Creative intelligence is always acting, ever vigilant to unfold its unbounded resources in every particle of existence." T at 126. The textbook repeatedly states that creative intelligence is "the universal basis of life," e.g., T at 189, and "the home of all qualities that constitute the universe," e.g., T at 292. Creative intelligence, according to the textbook, has an unlimited supply of resources. T at 126. One of the recurrent promises of the textbook is the experience of universality gained from contact with pure creative intelligence. E.g., T at 188. It is in this context of universality that creative intelligence must be evaluated. Almost needless to say, the implicit comparison of creative intelligence to electricity, the wheel, the printing press, and water add nothing to defendants' arguments.
As can be seen from the foregoing discussion, one of defendants' methods of refuting the obvious import of textbook statements is to suggest a worldly entity or concept to which the textbook statement arguably might be applied. For example, faced with the textbook statement that creative intelligence "guides and sustains every aspect of the universe," T at 174, defendants claim that creative intelligence is really like gravity guiding the paths of the planets; faced with the textbook statement that creative intelligence conducts the activity of nature, T at 114, defendants argue that creative intelligence is functioning in a fashion similar to that of a DNA molecule; faced with statements in the textbook that creative intelligence is the home of all qualities including beauty, creativity, intelligence, and orderliness, defendants assert that a "Rembrandt painting can be described using similar values...." Jarvis Affidavit P. 39. The problem with this approach is that creative intelligence, as described in the textbook, is not truly similar to any of the items to which defendants have compared or analogized it. For defendants' analogies to have any validity, one must, in examining the analogies, exclude from consideration the fact that creative intelligence possesses a plethora of qualities which are not possessed by the items to which it is compared. The weakness of defendants' comparisons perhaps is underscored by juxtaposing and noting the lack of similarity among the items and concepts to which they have compared creative intelligence: gravity, DNA, a Rembrandt painting, energy, the wheel, water, matter, electricity. The dissimilarity of concepts to which creative intelligence has been compared is not surprising in light of the teachings of the textbook. Since "[t]he ultimate reality of every object is creative intelligence," T at 154, creative intelligence presumably is ultimately similar to everything in the universe.
Defendants state that "[c]reative intelligence is not intended to be understood as an all-pervasive 'being' like God." Jarvis Affidavit P. 37. No elaboration on this statement is made in the affidavit. The textbook repeatedly asserts that creative intelligence is all-pervasive. For example. the textbook states that creative intelligence
is present in all forms, words, smells, tastes, and objects of touch. In all the objects of experience, in all the senses of perception and organs of action, in every phenomenon, in the doer and the work done, in all directions--north, south, east, and west--in all times past, present. and future--it is uniformly present. In front of man, behind him, to the left and right of him, in him--everywhere, and under all circumstances, creative intelligence is permeating everything.
T at 186. The textbook repeatedly states that "creative intelligence is present everywhere," e.g., T at 23, 36. "The ultimate reality of every object is unmanifest creative intelligence." T at 154. "The universe is a continuous, unified whole, an unbroken field of creative intelligence." T at 137. Creative intelligence, according to the textbook, clearly is all-pervasive. Whether creative intelligence is a "being," essence, principle, intelligence, or entity has no bearing on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
In opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment defendants also rely upon the depositions of three clergymen. All three clergymen, a Catholic priest, a United Presbyterian minister, and a rabbi. have attended their own pujas, have taken full or partial courses on the Science of Creative Intelligence, which they believe to have been substantially similar in content to that taught in the New Jersey high schools, and practiced Transcendental Meditation. At least one of the clergymen was active in an attempt to introduce the Science of Creative Intelligence into the curriculum of the public high schools in his place of residence and has a daughter who is a teacher of SCI/TM. All three clergymen, based on their understandings of SCI, testified that they did not view their courses in the Science of Creative Intelligence as courses in religion or religious philosophy. Each of the clergyman also testified, based on his understanding of SCI, that he found nothing in the Science of Creative Intelligence course which he took which conflicted with his religion. Two of the clergymen examined the textbook which was used in the New Jersey schools for the first time on the day of their depositions. Prendeville Deposition at 146; Roberts Deposition at 26. The third clergyman testified that he had had a copy of the textbook in his possession for several weeks and had "looked it over kind of carefully." Essrig Deposition at 59. The same clergyman testified that he had attended only a small part of a course on the Science of Creative Intelligence, but also had attended three or four weekend "residence courses" in which he heard several lectures, both live and on video tape, on the subject and had attended "many meetings" at a TM center. Id. at 19, 54, 56. One of the clergymen testified that in his course on the Science of Creative Intelligence he was provided with a copy of the Bhagavad-Gita and had purchased a copy of Commentaries on the Bhagavad-Gita by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for use in the course. Roberts Deposition at 71, 57-58. There is no evidence that the Bhagavad-Gita or defendant Yogi's Commentaries thereon were used in connection with the course taught in the New Jersey high schools.
While the court, of course, accepts the statement of each of the clergymen that it is his understanding of the Science of Creative Intelligence course that he took that the course was not a course in religion or religious philosophy, the question whether or not the teaching of the Science of Creative Intelligence, as represented by the textbook and by the deposition testimony of two people who taught the course in New Jersey high schools, constitutes a violation of the establishment clause presents a different question and remains a legal question for resolution by the courts. In addition, it is impossible for this court to determine either what the understanding of each clergyman regarding the Science of Creative Intelligence is or the similarity between the course taken by the clergymen and that offered to New Jersey high school students. There is evidence in the record that the courses taken by the clergymen differed in content both from each other and from the course offered in the New Jersey high schools. One of the clergymen was read three excerpts from the textbook used in New Jersey schools and asked if he had been taught the substance of the quoted excerpts in the course on the Science of Creative Intelligence which he had taken. The clergyman answered "no" to two of the three questions. Prendeville Deposition at 97-101. Later, the same clergyman was asked if he had been taught that "the field of pure creative intelligence is the ocean of life and that all manifest existence and evolutionary processes are waves of that ocean," which is a virtual quotation of a statement appearing on page 20 of the textbook used in New Jersey high schools. The clergyman answered the question with a categorical "No." Id. at 117. The same clergyman testified that he had been taught in the SCI course which he had taken that the field of pure creative intelligence existed only within each individual. Id. at 117-18. This teaching clearly contravenes that of the textbook used in New Jersey high schools. E.g., T at 23, 36, 40, 42, 154, 292. The same clergyman's articulated understanding of the meaning of the term creative intelligence differed substantially from the definition which appears in the textbook before the court. Compare Prendeville Deposition at 93, 97, 99 with T at 20.
As noted earlier, another clergyman testified that he used materials in his course on the Science of Creative Intelligence which were not used in New Jersey or by the other two clergymen. The third clergyman took only a small part of the course, but has attended lectures on the Science of Creative Intelligence from time to time.
None of the three clergymen testified that he actually had read the entire textbook used in the New Jersey high schools. Two of the clergymen saw the book for the first time on the day of their depositions; they could not have spent more than a few minutes in inspecting it. The third clergyman testified that he had had a copy of the textbook in his possession for several weeks and had "looked it over kind of carefully;" he also responded "[y]es, I did," when asked if he had had "a chance to review the book." Essrig Deposition at 59, 22. The same clergyman also testified that he made no note or other writings during or after his examination of the textbook. Id. at 59. Immediately following a conference with defendants' counsel, this clergyman testified on redirect examination that he had "studied" the textbook. Id. at 106. The clergyman did not specify the portions of the textbook which he had studied, but did not remember any reference to the term "bliss-consciousness" in the textbook. Id. at 104. The term "bliss-consciousness" appears tens, probably scores, of times throughout the textbook. The term occasionally is used as a synonym for creative intelligence. E.g., T at 55, 144. The same clergyman also stated that he had never heard the term "bliss-consciousness" at any of the lectures on the Science of Creative Intelligence.12a Essrig Deposition at 102-03.
Aside from the difficulty in determining the basis for the clergymen's understandings of the Science of Creative Intelligence, it is difficult to see the utility of this testimony to the court in light of the fact that the court has a copy of the textbook actually used in the New Jersey high school course and hundreds of pages of deposition testimony of two people who taught that course.
Defendants also submit affidavits from two teachers of the New Jersey SCI/TM courses and eleven identical form affidavits signed by eleven students in New Jersey high schools. Each teacher stated that she does "not understand" the SCI/TM courses which she taught to be courses in religion. Each student's affidavit states the affiant's name, his religious affiliation, the fact that he took a SCI/TM course in a New Jersey high school, and the fact that the student does "not understand" that the SCI/TM course was a study of religion. Since none of these students read more than one-third of the textbook and most read less than one-sixth of the textbook, see Jarvis Affidavit P. 32, the students' understandings of the SCI/TM course is impossible to determine. Moreover, the court cannot rely on the unexplained conclusions of third parties when the teachings of the course are in evidence in the form of a textbook, especially if those teachings contradict the unexplained conclusions. In addition, the subjective characterizations by individuals of teachings as religious or not religious in their systems of categorization cannot be determinative of whether or not the teachings are religious within the meaning of the first amendment. See infra at 52-59.
Defendants also submitted the affidavits of two professors of religion who state that the Science of Creative Intelligence does not constitute a religion under their definitions of religion. These affidavits are discussed infra at 52-59.
[ top ]
12a The same clergyman testified that there was no connection between the teachings embodied in the Science of Creative Intelligence and the technique of Transcendental Meditation. See id. at 71. 99. The clergyman apparently was oblivious to the fact that defendants teach that the Science of Creative Intelligence explains the mechanics of the practice of Transcendental Meditation, including the teaching that the alleged benefits of the practice of Transcendental Meditation derive not from the contemplation of a meaningless sound but from contact with the unmanifest field of life known as the field of pure creative intelligence. E.g. T at 23, 24, 26, 38 [ back ]
[ top ]