--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "at_man_and_brahman" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > I know , its like dogs feeding off the scraps from the Kings > banquet. > > > > > > snip to end > > > > @@@@@@@@ > > > > This is exactly the attitude I have found among TM enthusiasts > here in Fairfield. It's > > disgusting, not to mention oblivious to the way gurus and ashrams > relate to each other in > > India, where only the the monumental egos are unwilling to share > the turf of seeking > > humanity. > > > > L B S > > > > Don't get upset, its just an analogy. > But its a good one. > I'm sure Maharishi doesn't mind so much. It is more my personal > feeling toward it.
******** I was not taking Maharishi to task for it, I was noting a common attitude here in Fairfield. I get that it is your own personal feeling, but I don't get that your choice of words (…like dogs feeding off the scraps from the king's banquet) is "just an analogy". ******** > > Question to you LB: If I went to the Dalai Lama's ashram , or to > some Tibetan monestary, or to a Hindu Temple complex, and started > getting wayward followers into my own personal 'movement', how would > you feel about it? ******** That is exactly the point that you and others who raise this argument are missing, and you are missing it twice over. First thing: the campus most assuredly is an ashram, but the community of Fairfield most assuredly is not. If the TMO wants to put up a fence to keep undesirable influences out, that is just fine. Just let them respect the principle that they have no right to reach over the fence and interfere in the lives of those who do not live in the ashram. Second thing: In Rishikesh you find, more often than not, ashrams located side-by-side and in groups. In most of them, no one gets upset if the sannyasis take a few weeks of instruction at the Divine Light Mission, or (God forbid) sit in a Punditji's satsang when he's in town. The attitude is more collegial and accepting. The attitude of the TMO, by comparison, is an aberration. To answer your question: If you are invited, the choice is yours. If you are not invited, the choice is still yours, but the prospect of a welcome reception is less. Since the community of Fairfield is not an ashram, I don't see that your line of reasoning has merit. However, I can tell you something that really does make me angry: it makes me EXTREMELY angry that saints who have been invited to Fairfield have had their lives threatened by TM loyalists. What is the logic there? "If you try to eat the scraps from our King's table, we'll kill you" ? 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/
