Judy, this is an example of Buck piling onto his own comments in a progression as his thoughts develop over a course of several days. I just want to point this out as another example of self-commenting, where I don't really see any attempt at manipulation.
I do think that Buck is giving us some valuable information about the internal workings of the movement at present. As I also have, occasionally, other sources of information, my feeling is that his assessments are quite correct. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote: > > The TM-conservative element inside evidently has the stronger hand over the > progressive TM'ers. The progressives get tolerated as much as they are in > that they are productive at teaching TM through Hagelin's work over with > David Lynch Foundation. Lynch is interesting in this because his works are > extra-territorial in his foundation. Lynch does not have to go through Bevan > so much; yet, Hagelin can't just do things by himself without bringing the > TM0 conservatives along. So as you say, mode is in a range between > membership that is practitioner-client based on the one hand and > discipleship-cult on the other. It's a good analysis. > -Buck in FF > > > > > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
