--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "at_man_and_brahman" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > snip > > > I also question the ethics of any of the various > > gurus who have set up outposts (or inposts) > > in Fairfield. If they truly respected Maharishi, > > I think they would discourage such > > encroachment on the spiritual community > > he founded. > > > > At the same time, I understand the laws of > > supply and demand. Maharishi's community > > is not immune to competition, and such is > > inevitable. In the long run, perhaps this > > competition will grow strong enough to > > effect some serious improvement at MUM > > and its environs and possibly put FFL > > out of business. > > > > That is not to say that enlightened gurus > > have to give in to the laws of supply and > > demand so readily. I cannot imagine, for > > all that Maharishi has been accused of, > > that he would ever set up shop next to > > some other guru's community just because > > it could be a ready source of students. > > > > If his devotees tried to do such a thing, > > I am certain he would condemn it, both > > out of a sense of ethics and a desire to > > protect the integrity of his own teaching, > > which these other gurus don't seem to > > care much about. > > > > Skewer away. > > @@@@@@@@ > > With pleasure. > > If that represents your true position, then you certainly must be sympathetic > to the people > of Christian affiliation in Fairfield who resent the presence of the TMO on > THEIR turf.
There is a distinct community in Fairfield set up by Maharishi that has a poor analogue in the Christian churches in town. Had Christ personally set up a community there, I might feel such sympathy to the embattled Christians. > > More to the point, this is out-and-out cult thinking, as contrasted with > non-cult thinking, > the difference being that only the cult thinker assumes the privileges that > others would > not. If I am not being clear enough, let me spell it out in greater detail. > > Damn democracy or not, freedom of association is guaranteed to all of us, > thanks to the > US Constitution. Despite this, TM enthusisasts through the years have > portrayed all other > gurus with local followings as cowardly predators. However, having witnessed > almost the > entire history of TM in Fairfield first hand, it is clear to me that the > development of these > local followings is logical, naturual, and a positive influence on the > community as a whole. Had you read my post with more clarity, you would have seen that I agree. My issue is not with the natural unfolding of competition in Fairfield, where it is even fair to characterize it as such, but with the lack of discouragement of it by Amma, Panditji, and whomever else either visits the town or nearby or sends representatives in their stead. I recognized in my post that the competition has the potential to do some serious good, but I still believe that these gurus shouldn't play the roles of active agents in its unfolding. Whether the local Movement wants to accept it or not, this phenomenon is inevitable in town. That doesn't mean that it has to be encouraged. I return to my point that Maharishi hasn't done this over the years, and I respect his ethic. I don't live in Fairfield and haven't for years, and I have little to do with the goings-on of the Movement anymore. I am not supportive of the exponentially growing cultism of the Movement, and my posts generally demonstrate that. However, I believe that just because you can do something and just because someone inevitably will do something if you don't do it first, doesn't mean that it is right for you to do or to do it first. > > Many people have fallen away from the TMO over the years. Some from > disinterest, some > from distaste. Among them, many have chosen to stay in Fairfield, as is their > right. Among > those who continued their quest for knowledge and experience, it should be no > surprise > that they sought out other teachers. To re-iterate, the demand grew from the > Fairfield > side, at least in the case of Amma, Punditji, and some others. I agree, and my post acknowledged that. > > It is also known that purveyors of many kinds of snake-oil have passed > through here, and > all the popular seminars have mined this town as well. I just think it is > inaccurate to lump > all non-TM interests together. I don't believe I did. > > Your remark about putting FFL out of business is surprising. It seems to > pretty clearly put > you among those who believe that the chat group is just a cover for an > insidious plot > against "our dear movement". Bullshit. > > Believe me, I can understand how some of the stuff that is posted here could > make TM > enthuisasts uncomfortable. On the other hand, I think they have quite a lot > that they can > legitimately feel uncomfortable about, and it's time they stopped blaming > others for their > problems. By "putting FFL out of business," I plainly meant that competitive forces have the potential to solve a great many problems that this group expends tremendous energy complaining about. I'm not against such forces. I prefer to see them unfold from the demand side rather than from the supply side. Peace, brother. Don't be so quick to attack. > > L B S To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
