--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote: > > Zarzari786 excellent critique here. And, welcome too to FFL. Fairfieldlife > is proly the best place to give input to the TMO from the outside as it does > get read and digested by everybody inside. > -Buck
Thank you Buck for the warm welcome. Even more so, since I heard that this is a very tough group. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I couldn't agree more with what you say here. If Adiraj, Maharaj, whatever > > is anything close to a Maharishi successor, he should go out and make a > > lecture tour about TM, or whatever they think they have to offer. > > > > He should be able to publicly stand for the program, embody it to everyone. > > This is what the Maharishi did. TM started out as a client cult, that is to > > say, it was not based on membership, discipleship, but rather directed to > > the general public, you simply could sign up for courses. The same was true > > for Ayurveda, which did not require TM membership, and many other programs > > that followed. > > Now TM is more and more like a membership club, more like a traditional > > religion. > > > > Compare that 'badge' approach to, lets say Ammachi, Karunamayi, Mother > > Meera and others, where anyone can come, anyone has access. Now that > > openess is the new style. > > > > TM at it's time was new style, client centered, but has sort of regressed > > into more of a membership cult. The new thing in this time is something > > completely open, there are too many things out there, too many meditations > > which you can pick. Any kind of elitism will not work. People select from > > different sources and pick what suits them best. And that is how it should > > be. And for me, openness, like open source is a precondition. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sounds really good - glad you were able to go. > > > > > > > > Yep, I have to thank Raja John Hagelin for granting me an > > > > exemption to attend the meeting. It was very nice . > > > > > > Thank you for providing this information, Buck. > > > I was going to ask how someone who was recently > > > turned down for a dome pass got to attend. And > > > I'm happy that you *got* to attend, if you found > > > it valuable or meaningful. Really. > > > > > > But doesn't it just say it all that a "knowledge > > > meeting," the purpose of which is to supposedly > > > disseminate Maharishi's wisdom (second-hand though > > > it may be) to those who could benefit from it, > > > could be or should ever be conceived of as "only > > > for those we deem worthy of it?" And then having > > > that concept *enforced*? > > > > > > I mean, this is spiritual elitism taken to a > > > whole new level. > > > > > > Y'know...just speaking to "Buck," > > > the thing I used to enjoy more than anything else > > > when I was still into the spiritual teacher thang > > > was seeing them face the toughest test any teacher > > > could ever face. That is, giving an intro lecture. > > > > > > Spiritual teachers get LAZY when they've been > > > surrounded by adoring followers for years, or > > > decades. They give "knowledge talks" LAZILY, > > > forgetting to dot the i's and cross the t's. > > > They don't *need* to. They know that they are > > > speaking to an audience composed of people who > > > have all drunk the Kool-Aid, and are going to > > > believe *anything* the teacher says. > > > > > > I used to love seeing teachers who had large > > > organizations full of people whose duty it was > > > to give the intro lectures to the great unwashed > > > step away from the pomp and circumstance and do > > > it themselves. That is, give a talk to an audience > > > composed largely of people who *hadn't* drunk the > > > Kool-Aid, who *didn't* believe all the things that > > > the True Believers in the audience did. And pull > > > it off. Almost as if they *remembered* what it > > > was like to talk to such an audience. > > > > > > That's a "tough audience." The one created in > > > an environment that says by definition "the only > > > people allowed into the room are the ones we deem > > > 'worthy' of being there, in that they already pre- > > > agree with everything that's going to be said," > > > that's an "easy audience." > > > > > > I have very little interest in hearing what King > > > Tony has to say to any "easy audience." But I'd > > > actually be interested to hear what he says to > > > a "tough audience." No entry requirements. No > > > badges to be shown. Just people, filing in to > > > fill the seats and hear how the supposed leader > > > of a supposedly still-important spiritual move- > > > ment talks its talk. > > > > > > In my not so humble opinion, someone willing to > > > expose themselves to the public only in situations > > > in which he gets to predetermine the "loyalty > > > factor" or "pre-programming" of the audience just > > > isn't worth listening to. I'm gonna hold out for > > > those who will talk to anyone...no preconditions, > > > no expectations. > > > > > > But, that said, was there anything *in particular* > > > he said that resonated with you? You are often > > > WAY too vague on this forum. Just as I'd like to > > > see King Tony deal with a real world audience for > > > once, I'd like to see you get real with us for > > > once and tell us what still gets you off about > > > the TM dogma. > > > > > >
