Unless, of course, said authorities are attempting to *preserve* the beloved thing by enforcing rules that the person tacitly acknowledged were good when they were a full-fledged participant, simply by virtue of being a full-fledged participant.
Now, you can argue that enforcing an unwritten rule about only going to Movement-sanctioned astrologers and gem-therapists is going a bit far, but since just about everyone reading this apparently agrees that a substantial reason why these sanctioned people/organizations exist in the first place is to serve as a fundraiser for the TMO and associated projects (in the case of MAPI, it is written into it's charter, IIRC!), it shouldn't surprise anyone that such rules, formal or informal, exist and that Current Believers⢠try to enforce them. So... even quasi-believers, at least when living in Fairfield, IA, national/international HQ of the TM organization, should not be surprised when people try to convince them to follow the guidelines, and it seems silly to object to people trying to get you to follow guidelines overtly designed to keep the Beloved Thing going, if you are STILL going to participate in some way with others in using the Beloved Thing. You can object all you want, but given the nature of the givens, it seems a silly thing to complain about: wanna continue to use our private facilities? Continue to abide, at least in public, with the guidelines that are set up concerning use of our private facilities. If you think something illegal, immoral or unethical is going on, take it to the proper civil/legal authorities. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Tea wrote: A more apt comparision would be a relationship, a marriage that > breaks > up. People are literally married to the movement. The movement is in > their brains, not just through meditation (that's the good thing), but > also through everything they know and believe. > > My comment: Extending this analogy I'd say that I got divorced from the TMO > but we remain good friends and sometimes even hang out together eg when I go > to the Dome. > > Tea, I sense what you're saying. To use different words: that the > authorities threaten individuals with the loss of something beloved unless > those individuals do what the authorities want them to do. Is that an > accurate way to describe it? > > > If this is truly happening, then no need to worry. Any organization that > uses such tactics will destroy itself from the inside out. > > >
