Given the quite strong and substantial peer-review science on all this, it would seem these Raja evidently are holding back World Peace with their anti-saint dome policy done this way they do.
These poor dome numbers here have long been the problem of this policy they are keeping. It is a shame and a time is come to change it. En lieu it would not be a bad thing to prosecute them all for crimes against humanity at the World Court of International Justice in the Hague. Their own research on meditating groups coupled with their miserable dome numbers would convict them. It is a sad case. A crime. > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
