What exactly is purity of the teaching? Go to see 5 different Maharishi Jyotishis and you'll get 5 different readings using 5 different approaches, but if a jyotishi trained at maharishi jyotish courses and using his training faithfully decides to stop giving the right % of his revenues to the mov't, then he'll be called a threat to the purity of the teaching and have his badge revoked. There are many similar cases in the tmo in which purity of teaching seems to just be an excuse to protect revenues. MMY changed his method of teaching TM drastically when he came to west and initiators know that even the method of choosing mantras has been changed over time. Instructions regarding program are constantly changing. It seems to me that misusing the term "purity of the teaching" for purely economic reasons is itself the biggest threat to the purity of the teaching these days.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > off_world_beings wrote: > > > > > > > > I think you need to answer the question > > > > I asked several posts back about keeping > > > > the purity of the teaching. > > > > > > Patrick Gillam wrote: > > > > > > Yes, this is the Big Question. Around here, people > > > seem to have answered it in a number of ways: > > > > Judy Stein wrote: > > > > (Not sure if these are your answers or just those > > that you've seen elsewhere and are reproducing, > > but I'm going to respond, if I may, as if they > > were yours.) > > The options I wrote are my takes on what I've > gleaned here. I'm not sure I'd fight for any one of > them. One reason I pursued the subject is to find > out what people think. > > Because "maintaining the purity of the teaching" is > the prime directive of TM teachers, I would think most > would have to address the issue somehow, as Off World > asks us to do. > > > > 3. The purity will inevitably be lost; creating an > > > orthodoxy to preserve it fails in that mission but > > > succeeds in creating a culture of exclusion, fear > > > and faux superiority. > > > > It doesn't fail to preserve it among the > > orthodox. > > I was baptized and confimed in the Lutheran Church- > Missouri Synod, a fundamentalist branch of Lutheranism. > It's small, with maybe one million members in the United > States. But that membership is adequate to sustain two > seminaries and a lively sense of community. It's not losing > members as so many mainstream denominations are. > > It takes care not to mingle with other churches who don't > share its strict interpretation of scripture. For example, > an LCMS pastor was reprimanded for participating in an > ecumenical service shortly after September 11, 2001, > where more liberal churches participated. > > I think Maharishi is happy to be a school of knowledge > in the LCMS mold -- not huge, but home to those who > are honored to be custodians of truth in its purity. > > ----------- > > One response that I did not list in my earlier post might be this: > > 5. I cannot say what is ultimate truth, nor will I take the word > of others for what is truth. Hence I cannot say whether the > purity of TM is worth fighting for. > > - Patrick Gillam To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
