--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > 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...:-)
Ah, so we imagined it all. Fascinating evasion. > 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? > > >
