--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "I am the eternal" > <L.Shaddai@> wrote: > > > > Where are the numbers? In South America, if the initiations we > > here of are true, and in India, based on what the TMO shows us > > about TMO money at work in India. Now I remember 20 years or > > more ago there were these missions to places like Thailand, > > where one could sponsor a meditator and a Governor for something > > like USD 30 a month. But that seems to have stopped. So we're > > left, I truly believe, with 10-50 thousand old time meditators, > > max. It's not a pop into enlightenment before you finish the 7 > > step program type of meditation. So I believe that Rick knows > > people who are quietly enlightened, but I'd imagine they > > represent a small portion of the 10-50K. > > > > Look at it this way. We're self-selected special. > > That's my whole point -- where are the enlightened? > > We are talking, after all, about an organization > that used to promise enlightenment *in its brochures* > in 5-8 years. It's 35-40 years later. Where are all > these enlightened beings? The TMO has failed to point > to even ONE and say, "Here is the product we were > advertising." > > It seems to me that the argument that "they're really > there, just living quietly" it specious. To use your > own analogy, it's like the developer of the Segway > raised investment money for 40 years but failed to > ever produce a Segway that actually worked. > > Sure, you'd still have a cadre of TB investors who > still believed in the Segway because they believed in > the charisma and the personality of the promoter, but > there would be nothing that the promoter would be able > to "show off" to prove that his theories were correct. > > THAT is the position I am suggesting that the TMO is > in. Anecdotal stories about people living quietly in > enlightenment and the TMO allowing it to happen because > they are somehow protecting their privacy is specious.
Hmm, I haven't heard any such "anecdotal stories," have you? <snip> > I have *no problem* with people still having faith and > believing in what they were told originally. That is > understandable, and no different than any other religion. > > It's just that I wish they'd be honest and own up to > their faith *being* faith, and nothing else. Barry reminds me of a horse attached to a capstan that turned a mill or a pump in pre-electricity days, walking endlessly in a circle. The angle of view changes depending on where he is in the circle, but the view itself is limited to what he can see as he plods around the path, wearing it ever deeper into the ground. And that view never *evolves*, it never incorporates any new input; it just repeats over and over. One can certainly *make* a religion of what MMY taught, but it takes a whole lot more (and less) than having confidence that there is such a thing as enlightenment and that TM is a particularly effective way to get you there. As I pointed out earlier, TM critics like Barry use the terms "faith" and "religion" as pejoratives; and they apply the terms to anything that isn't validated by objective proof. There's no middle ground involving personal experience or reasoned intellectual analysis. As far as they're concerned, if there's no objective proof, it's nothing more than believing what one was told without question. So limited, so barren.
