The domes are full of people right now who have visited saints.  

> 
> Yep, evidently the Rajas have produced two domes full of liars.  That is a 
> bad feeling there as in, not a good feeling to have there underneath.
> 
> >
> > 
> > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to