> > > > of the movement quite unnecessarily. I heard Hagelin say the > > > > following with my own ears "This is something WE (the folks > > > > on the stage) came up with. It did not come from MMY or GD". > > > > > > But sometimes it *did* come from MMY. *Directly* > > > from him. > > > > > > On my TTC we had whole lectures on how we were > > > NEVER to be seen attending any talks by other > > > spiritual teachers, or reading their books. The > > > rap (or "wrap"...an attempt to program or control) > > > went, "If one of my teachers is seen at someone > > > else's centers or lectures, that implies that my > > > teachers feel that they have something to *learn* > > > from this person, something they cannot get "at > > > home" in the TM organization. It implies that TM > > > is not the "highest path." > > > > > > Well, it isn't. It's just another path. > > > > > > That Maharishi didn't want any of his students > > > to know this is the issue, and always was. The > > > people putting up that sign weren't working on > > > their own; they were doing what they had been > > > taught to do. > > > > But that's a TM teacher instruction, which is a separate issue > > from the thing about Sidhas at Fairfield visiting other gurus. > > How can it be a seperate issue? It amounts to the same thing > and obviously comes from the same place.
I think what Lawson is proposing is called the "Wal-Mart Defense." He's essentially saying that he agrees with their right to send out strong memos and hold mandatory meetings with their employees telling them to vote Republican, and implying heavily that they are jeapardizing their jobs if they do not. Or is that another "separate issue?" :-) Somehow I think not. > I know someone who won't even tell me what NLP course he > went on in case he gets banned from the dome. Who'd want > to live in a climate of fear like that? Lawson's stance seems to be that he would not only be willing to live in such a climate of fear, but that he is willing to step up to the plate and defend the fear creators' right to create and perpetuate such an environment. And, it is important to note, he's taking this stance without ever once having walked the walk of his own talk. Unless I am mistaken, he never became a TM teacher (and thus has no earthly idea the pressures and lifestyle demands that were placed on them) and he's never lived in Fairfield (and thus had any first-hand experience with what it feels like TO live in such a climate of fear). All he seems to be able to do is repeat over and over that Wal-Mart/the TMO has the absolute right to tell its employees how to live. If the employees don't like it, they can quit. I'm sorry, Lawson, but that IS what you're saying. And it IS called being an apologist.
