--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > Well then, it sounds like there is far more flexibility than > > the complaints have lead me to believe. > > Lawson, just as a question, how can you possibly justify > any *lack* of flexibility, or the banning process at all? >
As far as I can tell, there's 2 interrelated issues: 1) they won't have accurate numbers to work with to see how close they are and to conduct their correlation studies with and 2) they're afraid that close association with people who used to be gung-ho will weaken the resolve of everyone else (or something along those lines). [...] > Bottom line is that you are justifying the unjustifiable. > Neither the TMO nor anyone else has the right to tell > people what to believe and who they can visit as spiritual > teachers. This policy is a technique used *by the fearful* > to make others afraid and control them. *Especially* if > Maharishi regularly made exceptions to his own ill- > conceived rule when he was alive. > It might or might not be ill-conceived, but since he made up the rule, presumably, then presumably he gets to make up the exceptions to the rule, also. > The other bottom line is that if people about to take the > TM-Sidhi course were told *in advance* that they would > never again be allowed to see any other spiritual teacher > and still participate in the group practice of the Sidhis, > no one would sign up. They'd take one look at the policy, > murmur "Cult" under their breath, and walk away. It takes > a real, case-hardened cultist to either accept the policy, > or justify it. > Actually, in order to get accepted on the TM-Sidhis course in the first place, you had to make a pretty strong case that you believed that TM was the best thing out there, etc, or such is my recollection of the application process 25+ years ago. L
