--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > "Have firm faith and keep the company of saints, mahatmas, > > > and wise people. Only then will the purpose of your life > > > will be fulfilled." -Guru Dev SBS, Maharishi's teacher. > > > > Isn't it fascinating that the dome pass policies > > are a way of saying, "WE (the Rajas, King Tony, > > Bevan, and your fellow Sidhas) are the only saints, > > mahatmas, and wise people you ever need to keep > > company with. In fact, see anyone else, and WE > > won't let you keep company with US, either."
At least in the domes. I don't believe the dome-badge policy applies to one's social life. > > The TMO is at this point almost by definition a > > dying organization, because it will never produce > > any new teachings or authoritative teachers. The > > ability to create any died with Maharishi. If that's the definition of a dying organization. Organizations don't automatically die because they aren't producing new teachings or new teachers of the caliber of the founder. And of course there are lots of other reasons an organization might die. > > So the only way that such an impotent and life- > > less organization If it is, in fact, impotent and lifeless. > > can think of to keep people > > around and dedicated to the past is to make it > > a crime to be interested in learning something > > new in the present, or in the future. A "crime"?? Perhaps a more appropriate term would be "unwillingness to fulfill the conditions for participation." > > It's as > > if its leaders think that people would still be > > *afraid* of not being allowed to keep company > > with them. Obviously they believe most TM-Sidhis practitioners *want* to practice in the domes. > > The TMO leaders' message is also a clearly- > > implied putdown of those who see other teachers, > > or the "saints, mahatmas, and wise people" GD > > spoke of: > > > > "If you do that," they're saying with their > > policy, "there is something WRONG with you. The > > canon of Maharishi's teachings that he passed > > along to us during his lifetime isn't ENOUGH > > for you. You dare to think that there could be > > something of value somewhere else or from some- > > one else. This is WRONG. You should be content > > the way we are with what he left to us, because > > that's all there is of spiritual value in the > > world. There could not *possibly* be anything > > 'more,' because Maharishi didn't provide it." > > > > And so with every day the organization shrinks, > > as more and more people realize the ego-based > > hubris of all this. In a way it's like the > > process of a star collapsing into itself and > > becoming a dark hole, before exploding into a > > supernova. I get the feeling, however, that if > > there is a supernova left in the TMO, it's > > likely to be no louder or more noticeable than > > a quiet fart in an empty library. Just for the record, a supernova is the explosion that occurs when a star collapses. A black hole is the end result of the collapse. The black hole, moreover, has a gravity so extreme that it sucks everything in its vicinity into itself. You might want to tweak your analogy a bit... > I guess what I am suggesting is that the policy > of "Thou shalt not see any other teachers" is a > way of saying that True Believers should abandon > the natural Tendency of the mind to seek more, and > suppress any spiritual aspirations that cannot be > met by those teachings and and techniques and > structures that Maharishi left in place before > his death. You know what? I'll bet that isn't what those who established and implement the dome-badge policy have in mind at all. I'll bet they'd say there *are* no spiritual aspirations that cannot be met by MMY's teachings and techniques and structures, that the natural tendency of the mind to seek more finds its fulfillment in those teachings etc. (In fact, that's what you suggested they were saying in an earlier paragraph, which you'd apparently forgotten by the time you wrote this one.) One could certainly argue that this is not the case, but putting one's own words into the mouths of the folks responsible for the policy, when those words are obviously contrary to their beliefs, is probably not the best way to do it. > In a sense, it's the equivalent of > the Hindoo practice of Sati: > > "You should not even *think* of remarrying or > dating after your spiritual husband's (MMY's) > death. What you should do instead is throw > yourself on the slow-burning funeral pyre > of his memory." Actually, sati was said to guarantee the ultimate liberation of both the widow and her husband. So that analogy might need a bit of tweaking as well.
