--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, it is really quite incredible that these TM Rajas should even be > > > > going against Guru Dev's very certain spiritual advice to make use of > > > > our time on earth particularly by being with saints. > > > > > > Oh Please! They are not going against Guru Dev, they are trying to > > > follow the guidelines set up by Maharishi himself long ago. > > > > Now, leave Guru Dev out of this, we don't know what he would have said. > > > > > > >MMY was entirely clear about all of this and never ever budged from his > > >position. > > > > Maharishi was clear, at times. This policy, I know, has consolitated during > > the final period of his life, but it wasn't always the same. And Maharishi > > could make exceptions to this rule, as I already said, for example in > > Lelystad. I don't blame you if you don't know that, but he did budge from > > his position. But in setting up 'rules', he would have to teach the > > administration, and usually was strong about it, I agree. > > > > > The Rajas have to decide to make changes that MMY never did > > > > He did. The rules before were different (for example before the Muktananda > > event), and he would make exceptions himself. > > > > > Now, maybe Maharishi would have changed this rule by now, but don't blame > > > the Rajas or anyone else. This rule came from Maharishi and he was BLUNT > > > about it. > > > > I am sure he was blunt to the administration. Yet, as you say yourself, it > > may be time for a change. The Rajas had no problem skipping the > > always-wear-a-crown thing, or inviting Beatles back, and even more so, use > > them for publicity, something unthinkable when Maharishi was still alive. > > And they even loosened the saints rule a bit, don't forget, but what I > > suggest is, keep these changes logical and transparent. > > > > What is illogical? > > > > There is a common belief in India, that once you have found your Guru, you > > don't need anybody else, right? We have Maharishi, we don't need Ammachi > > (or whoever), thats what you would hear in private conversations. That is > > to say, a Guru-Disciple relationship is assumed. The problem here is, that > > the TM movement is not at all upfront that this is the case. They are not > > telling, that Maharishi is our guru, but he is supposed only to be the > > founder of TM, at least publicly. Now, hence the confusion. > > > > Now, with regard to Maharishi being 'Guru', if he is a Guru to the TM > > people involved, to what people exactly? All TM teachers? Also TM teachers > > who are not really teachers anymore? And: Do they know this? > > > > Next: if we assume, that Maharishi is a guru to the people, which is not > > publicly said, it would be still possible, that people see different > > saints, as long as they don't take teaching from them, or rather as long as > > they don't become their disciples *simultaneausly*. > > > > There is an example often cited within TM, referring to Guru Dev, not > > seeing another saint or speaker, who comes to town, while all the Gurubhais > > go there. He stays in the Ashram, as his heart is completely filled with > > his master. Now a guest comes, nobody is in the Ashram to receive him, > > except Guru Dev, taking care of him, and finally the master finds out about > > the story, and viola, GD is just the most dedicated and devoted disciple. > > > > When citing this story, to TM teachers or sidhas, they usually forget to > > say: GD was having a relationship with his master that was personal > > throughout, he lived with him, he watched him daily, and he lived in his > > vibration. He had a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP to his master. But most people > > concerned from these policies, may even never have seen Maharishi, or any > > enlightened at all! That is what Buck is pointing out completely rightly: > > GD says it is very important to seek the company of saints! But, not being > > able to see Maharishi anymore, or even ever, the people are deprived from > > this. > > > > And then: in the example cited above, GD was so devoted that he stayed in > > the Ashram, while all others saw the saint/speaker. Do you notice two > > things? There was NO RULE in the Ashram to not see other saints, they did > > so with permission. And second, when GD stayed, he did so OUT OF HIS OWN > > WILL, out of his spontaneous devotion, not an IMPOSED SHOW OF DEVOTION. > > > > Two elements are present here: sponatneity of devotion, and I think that is > > the only devotion worth considering, and a real and lively guru-disciple > > relationship. Now, consider yourself: is this the case in TM? Obviously not > > for most people, obviously less so for more and more people since Maharishi > > withdrew in Holland, and since time passes ofter his demiss. There will > > come a time, not too far away, where there will be nobody anymore, who has > > a living memory of Maharishi. If you keep the rules up like this, you will > > be just a cult. > > > > Excellent points and I agree on all counts. I know that my response was > coming from trying thru several posts over a long length of time - to get > Buck to see that this is not a Raja problem, it is a policy that began with > MMY. You may have heard him budge on it, but I was in and around for a long > time and he was always crystal clear about not going to see other saints, and > it was open knowledge for all teachers. You knew that if you did this and > got seen, you could not attend courses or get advanced techniques or go to > the Domes. I don't agree with that, but my point is that it was clear. > > I especially like your point about having a guru disciple relationship - you > nailed it. Without that relationship, these TMO rules seem really harsh and > unreasonable. So we were asked to act as if we had this discipleship going > on, but were not in much contact with MMY andc ertainly got no personal > guidance. Personally, I hope they change the rules, but I am annoyed by > Buck's ongoing blame of the Rajas for this rule. >
Nope, the problem is that these TM Rajas take it the way they do now; choosing to punish people with access to the dome over the anti-saint policy. They certainly have the power and authority to do it differently.
