These TM Rajas, that large Prime Minister in particular, push people to lie, hide and kiss ass to stay in the domes. I interviewed a person recently who was on the Mother Divine program, she remarked that to survive on Mother Divine they would all "lie, hide and kiss-ass" about this. In people's life the TM anti-saint policy is quite without conscience for people to participate.
> > > The immediate urgent priority for national invincibility and world peace > is to join the Invincible America Course at MUM. Only 2000 Flyers, > rising to 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring security to > America and defuse the precarious escalation of conflict in the world. > > > > > > > > > --- 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. > > >
