--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > One can only hope that it is not like the things that > Doug/Buck expresses here. His elitism and his disdain for > "non-meditators" is as loathsome in its way as the TMO's > obvious disdain for "non-TBs." Also, as Joe points out, > I think Doug would not only say that the "goal" of any > such initiative would not only be to encourage as many > people to meditate as possible, but to use any means > necessary to *force* them to meditate. whether they > want to or not. >
Turq, thanks for noticing the distinction. However you're asserting a mighty large assumption about the supposed elitism. Naah, anyone who can think can be spiritual. Whether pure or impure. It's the science which says that everyone ought to meditate. Should meditate. As effective spiritual practice. That's the science. Would simply be good for everyone's benefit to facilitate human brain development that way. However, I am comfortable now with Keith, Jerry, Hagelin, David Lynch, Roth and them capable types figuring it out for a teaching TM movement. Certainly NOT everyone needs to be at the table, especially not old has-been meditation quitters who did not go the whole way nor just necessarily a bunch of god-damned mood-making pencil-neck TM-TB'ers without merit neither. This is large work to be done that needs some delegating. Godspeed to them fighting the good fight in the middle for us all. Jai Adi Shankara, -Buck in FF > That is certainly not my idea of what a real meditation > movement would be like. It would be more along the lines > Joe expresses -- making a potentially valuable practice > *available* to as many people as possible, without the > pseudo-scientific bullshit used to sell it, and at a > *very* reasonable cost, which I would roll back to no > more than $75.00 for working adults, $35 for students, > and free for those who can not afford either fee. > > Would the "New TMO" still have residence courses, during > which every single moment of a participant's time is > controlled and monitored? Would it still try to pressure > "meditators" into taking "advanced" courses that aren't > the least bit advanced? Would it still pressure them to > learn the TM-Sidhis, the value of which has *never* been > proved? Would it still gouge them every time it got for > "donations?" Would it still encourage the modern-day > counterpart of indentured servitude and sponsor "pundits?" > > All of these are things to consider. But they're all > things to be *against*, with still very little said about > what you would be *for*. > > I think some serious thought needs to go into this letter > before it is even posted here for "peer review." IT IS > NOT ENOUGH to be *against* the things about the TMO > one doesn't like. That's an "easy out," but is a trap > in that even if you managed to accomplish it, you'd be > in the position of looking around and saying, "What now?" > > I think that a more productive point of view would be > to *start* with "What then?" and go from there. Design > the way you'd like it to BE, without dwelling overmuch > on the way it is now, and how much you don't like that. > > Just my two centimes... >
