--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > <but actual provable lies.> > > This standard is absurd in this context. I'll give you the ones that > I know he made in my movement career that effected me personally. I > am in no position to "prove" any of these to you especially > considering your own bias. > > > CC in usually experienced in 7 years. > > 3 years in Sidhaland to master the sidhis. (Directly promised to > people who signed on.) > > The third generation of crops from the seeds we saved grown on > sidhaland would grow into amazing plants. > > Three years of unpaid labor at sihaland would pay for TTC. > > MIU students would have their phase I and II honored after their > graduation if they finished their degrees. Again directly promised to > us right from Switzerland in a directly answered question. Right after > graduation he said our TTC phase I and II from MIU was not valid and > we had to do them both again. > > That his teachers would have their ATR credits gained from their hard > work of initiations honored instead of being eliminated after the fact.
This deserves details. This was a HUGE event that people who weren't there and teaching TM can't understand fully. I think it happened around 1974. For thoe who weren't there: teachers had been teaching TM fulltime, most for years, earning 'ATR" credits. You got one credit for each person you initiated. MMY and the TMO policy was that for every 100 ATR credits earned you could go on an ATR course for free (ATR courses were for teachers and MMY wanted teachers on one at least once a year for 2 weeks to rest up). Most teachers worked very hard and saved up their ATR credits, and of course the money paid to teachers was not much, so the ATR was part of your "salary." All of a sudden, ATR credits you had already earned were devalued - so those who had worked so hard suddenly could not go on an ATR course and had to keep working. In effect, it was a large retroactive salary cut and no one was allowed to protest. If you even questioned this, it was bad form and you could be "reported." Furthermore, in another devaluation a few years later (1978?), some people had saved up ATR credits for years in order to be able to afford to go on the 6 month course or even a 2 month course to get the siddhis. These teachers saved for a few YEARS in good faith. Suddenly, those credits were worth very little. Some people had even bought these credits from others for their market value at the time of several thousand dollars (this buying of credits was allowed by the TMO) and then, presto - these credits were no good at all, as I recall. I think they were worthless and only cash was accepted for courses (I could be wrong about this). When this happened, many teachers felt betrayed again and angry and lost faith in the whole thing. Many decided not to be emplyed by the TMO any longer and moved on (now i can see some here thinking that this was what MMY wanted and it was good for the teachers). The context of when these things happened: Initiations were high and the TMO was making a great deal of money - they paid teachers very little, provided no benefits whatsoever, not even social security or unemployment, and so you had to wonder what was going on here. My take: if it is all part of the big plan and we are just players in the drama, fine and dandy. Part of that plan is that I don't like to hang out with people who treat others in unkind or dishonest ways. I mentioned to a few TB's even recently that they would not be friends with anyone who has treated others the way the TMO and MMY treated people. They agreed and said it was beyond their ken. As far as I am concerned,TM "works", MMY was enlightened and amazing, but the relative side was unsavory to say the least, judging by normal standards of fairness. I know there was financial sleaze and many were hurt, and I believe there was sexual stuff too, most likely. We can argue about whether it is ok to look the other way or make excuses, but we cannot deny that the financial stuff happened. It is a fact. > > He doesn't care about money because his dhoti had no pockets. > > People would actually fly with his flying sutra. > > That TM improves people's social behavior. > > That TM makes people more creative or intelligent. > > That TM and Ayur Veda gives you perfect health when his last decade's > health was pathetic. > > That's off the top of my head. Your challenge is ridiculous because > we all decide for ourselves how credible the guy was. You have your > own standards and I have mine. But if you lived in his fulltime > organization you saw promises given and reneged on time after time. It > usually involved money. OURS becoming HIS. > > > yes, cling desperately-- you come across as this super reasonable, > > i'm ok, you're ok guy most of the time, curtis, but if someone > > challenges your blind spot biases, its a whole nother story. > > I don't know what blind spot you think you have challenged. I think > it is likely that a famous guy like Maharishi banged some chicks. You > don't. Where is the blind spot? I'm not clinging to anything, I > could be wrong. So could you. > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and > > > > geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling > > deperately to > > > > the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his > > sex life? > > > > > > "Cling desperately" huh? The guy lied about all sorts of stuff > > > > yes, cling desperately-- you come across as this super reasonable, > > i'm ok, you're ok guy most of the time, curtis, but if someone > > challenges your blind spot biases, its a whole nother story. > > > > ok, you're on, please list five things that you can prove the > > Maharishi lied about. not differences of opinion, or quotes out of > > context, but actual provable lies. > > >
