I can honestly say I went on a lot of residence courses, and was never asked to donate money, or purchase *anything*. Wasn't a perfect experience, but this rapaciousness you attribute to the reps of the TMO was just never present whenever I interacted with them. Not once, during major national courses, residence courses, or working for the TMO on staff, was I ever asked for donations, or to get the next big thing. This is some tape loop in your head, that does not match reality. And you know what they say, where there's smoke, there's fire...:-)
I was glad they insisted on the buddy system, too, because I was on a flying course once in DC, and it was very easy after doing a lot of meditation, to get lost downtown. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Just so this doesn't get buried inside a topic many > people weren't reading, here it is with a new title, > and under a new thread. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > What makes you think that this "negatively charged tone" > > > is in THEM? It seems to me that a large number of people > > > *project* such things ONTO the TM critics, because they're > > > heavily attached to Maharishi and TM, and *their* buttons > > > got pushed. They're experiencing emotions inside themselves > > > that they perceive as negative, so they project the source > > > of that perceived negativity onto the critic. > > > > To expand upon this, Share, here's what I saw happen > > in this thread about the fundraising for Vedaland. > > > > Based upon what Michael and Salyavin have said about > > this incident, it seems clear that the TM organization > > not only was guilty of selling shares in a venture they > > knew was not going to happen because Doug was dying, > > they did so *on long-term residence courses*, sending > > people to solicit partnerships/donations from people > > who were rounding, and thus had been instructed to > > not make any serious decisions while rounding. > > > > OK, that strikes me as a pretty big "WTF moment." > > > > And so far, in my quick re-read of the thread, it seems > > that other than Michael, Salyavin and myself, no one > > from the still-loyal-to-TM camp has really commented > > *on the issue itself*. Buck came the closest. > > > > Most others have been playing one form or another of > > "Kill the messenger," either suggesting that something > > is wrong with Michael or the other critics, or that > > something was wrong with their "tone," that it was > > "negative." > > > > Here's what I think. > > > > The negativity is in the "Kill the messenger" types. > > They heard something *that they didn't want to hear*. > > It caused cognitive dissonance in them. They knew that > > if they dealt with it directly and said what this news > > made them *feel* about the organization they've been > > part of for so long, and said it honestly, they'd be > > perceived by other TBs as "negative." So they stayed > > as far away from the real issue as possible. > > > > Instead they projected the inner turmoil they were > > feeling about the issue onto the people who *were* > > talking about the issue, and tried to turn the thread > > into talking about *them* instead. Classic "Kill the > > messenger," and classic cult. > > > > You seem to be full of advice today on how Michael or > > others could clean up their "negatively charged tone." > > Well, here's some advice from me. Try not to project > > the button-pushed turmoil inside yourself onto other > > people, and lash out at them rather than dealing with > > what they said. > > > > It's not whether Michael is outraged over this issue. > > That's fairly obvious. The bigger question is, "Why > > aren't you?" > > > > How 'bout it, TM-supporters? Take this issue and discuss > > it *AS* issue, no personalities, and no attempts at > > well-poisoning and slander. > > > > Please explain how what the TM did in this case can be > > seen as OK, legal, or benevolent. Please explain why > > you still feel the need to support them or defend them, > > if that's what you wind up doing. But talk about the > > issue *itself*, not the people who brought it up. > > > > We'll wait... > > Suggestions for possible discussion points? > > - Did you ever experience, while on rounding courses, > representatives of the TMO "pitching" you on things > that cost money? You know, like "the next big course > you just had to attend," or "the next technique you > just had to have," or the next Maharishi-add-on > product you just had to buy, be it Ayurveda or S-V > houses? > > - If so, how do you reconcile this fairly obvious > attempt to get you to spend more money or donate more > money with the clear instructions you were given at > the start of every rounding course, "Don't make any > major decisions while you are here?" > > - What *is* it about the TM technique that makes it > "100% positive" when done as advertised, 20 minutes > twice a day, but that makes it so powerful during > rounding courses that you have to be assigned a > "buddy" to keep track of you, and you are prohibited > from leaving the course premises? Clearly the people > who made up the "buddy" and the "don't leave the > course" rules believed that people on rounding courses > were in a somewhat disabled state, because they made > up these rules to protect them (and, of course, to > protect the movement, lest they get into any trouble > while spaced out walking around in the community where > the course was being held). But they didn't believe > in the truth of the "Don't make any major decisions > rule" enough to refrain from trying to SELL them > things on courses? WTF? >
