--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <boo_lives@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe chopra was just looking for an excuse to leave > > > > and do his own thing at that point. Basically I think > > > > someone with a practical independent attitude will > > > > ultimately come into conflict with the tmo inner circle - > > > > whether you view it as being kicked out or voluntarily > > > > leaving in frustration doesn't matter much. > > > > > > It matters a great deal in one case -- when the person > > > leaves of his own accord and Maharishi or the TMO claim > > > he was "kicked out." I saw that happen quite a few times. > > > > I call Barry's attention to this from the > > letter sent to the centers by National after > > Chopra left: > > > > "There have been many inquiries from Maharishi > > City Capitals asking what our policy should be > > regarding Dr. Deepak Chopra as they have heard > > he has left the Movement. This is to inform you > > that Dr. Chopra has confirmed with us that he > > has left the Movement to pursue his own career > > and desires to live a 'private and quiet life.' > > From his side Dr. Chopra has said that Centers, > > Governors, Teachers, Sidhas and Meditators > > 'should ignore him and not try to contact him > > or promote him in any way.'" > > > > Whether or not this is what Chopra actually > > said, it's the way the TMO chose to portray > > the split. > > > > > It's a common cult technique. What the cult is trying to > > > do is reinforce the idea that no one would ever *want* > > > to leave of their own accord. So it's better for the > > > cult to claim that they were kicked out for "conduct > > > unbecoming." Or, if they really can't hide the fact > > > that the person left on their own, to portray them > > > as crazy. > > > > Oddly enough, the "cult" did neither in Chopra's > > case. > > But Judy this is what the cult does every single day, I've > seen it so many times. It's just one aspect of why I can't > tkae them seriously anymore. > > Tapes with Chopra on aren't allowed to be played at meetings, > practise of Chopras techniques is discouraged. Why do they do > that if it's all smiles between them?
I don't read the letter to the centers concerning Chopra as conveying that "it's all smiles between them." Did you see the complete letter? I put it in another post. It seems pretty clear that the TMO considered the direction Chopra was taking to be a threat to the "purity of the teaching." > The first time I heard about him a "governor" took me to one side > and whispered "chopra was a man who stole all MMYs ideas and left > to make money out of them, it's best not to talk about him" these > people really believe that he is a "rackshasa" who spurned MMY and > therefore isn't worthy of mention. What Turq was pointing out is > this need of people to have an "us and them" approach to it. It > doesn't matter if it's not official if it's all you ever hear. What Barry was criticizing and I was addressing was the story that "apostates" had been kicked out rather than leaving of their own accord, or that they were "crazy" (read the quotes from his post above again). And that was not the official TMO position regarding Chopra, nor was it even the unofficial position, from what you say above. I don't think anybody here claimed or suggested that everything was all kissy-kissy rather than "us and them" where Chopra was concerned. The letter was very carefully written to sound as neutral as possible, but it doesn't take much reading between the lines to see that the split wasn't a happy one. The *merits* of the TMO's position on Chopra is another question entirely, one I wasn't addressing. I was simply pointing out that it would be incorrect to say that the TMO claimed Chopra had been kicked out or was crazy. > > Another example, Peter Wright wrote the book on TM that got me > interested, but mention his name and you get a comment like "we don't > recommend that book because he isn't into TM anymore" which is stupid > enough as it is but the reason he's another persona non grata is > because he described MMY as one guru among many. That's it, that's > all it was. The cultmaniacs in the TMO see this as a betrayal. I > think he's got the facts on his side and that is just too much for > TMers to comprehend, the possibility there may be another path just > blows a fuse somewhere, it scares them. Why is that? It's either what > MMY wants them to think or he doesn't know they do it. As far as I'm > concerned it's bullshit either way. >
