--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > Zarzari786, I have just come through a long and arduous interview probing > process in re-applying for a dome badge. Much of the consideration was > around this client-centered vs. membership-cult as you frame it. It was very > much around the difference between client practitioners and membership > devotee types. > > That is a fair distinction within TM. On the one hand we got some more > progressive people who tend to be more over in the Hagelin camp who would > like to see it work out for practitioners, while on the other hand are the > more strict preservationists around Bevan. Some of these later conservatives > are like the Taliban in that they are ruthless in their position. The > progressives are more sympathetic towards working it out for > practitioner-clients. Right now the Bevan-ista doctrinaire disciples have > more power than the Hagelin-ites. > -Buck
Zarzari, they do play hardball at this and there is lots of yelling going on. A risk is that if anybody wanting/needing to be on the inside would really persuasively argue for progressive change in the movement guidelines along the lines of a client-centered hosting as you describe, the Bevan-istas could just pack the bags of those people and 'out' them. There is still a web of dependence this way that gets pulled. Within this the "preservationists at all costs" is really where the cult is. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" 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 > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > >
