--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Steve Sundur <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > I admit, I enjoyed the Thai telecom piece over the > "chasing your dream" piece. But I wouldn't really > draw any conclusions about it. (-:
I was just having a little fun, but the point is IMO a valid one. Haven't you noticed that most of the "goals" of TMers are self-serving? To realize *my* enlightenment, so that *I* can become more happy and successful. Even the "save the world" goals are self-serving in that it's *us* who radiate such powerful Woo Woo that *we* change the world. I'm just pointing out that there are strong spiritual traditions that don't even *have* the goal of personal enlightenment, much less the New Agey "personal success and happiness" meme. Their whole emphasis is on giving, and on selfless service -- "doing for others." One of the most extreme contrasts between these two approaches to spiritual goals has to do with what the different traditions think of as their Ultimate Goal. For most Hindus (and Maharishi, as one), the UG is for "the drop to merge with the ocean," to become the Absolute, lose all individuality, and get off the wheel of life, death, rebirth, and karma forever. Those who follow the left-hand path of Buddhism, on the other hand, *don't* seek annihilation; instead they seek as an UG rebirth as a boddhisattva, incarnating over and over in endless worlds to help other people. I'm just pointing out that "giving" was never a big thing for Maharishi, and thus for many long-term TMers. *He* expected to get paid for teaching it, and the TM teachers he trained in turn expected to get paid for teaching it. I've been part of other organizations in which *no one* gets paid to teach or further the teaching. Everyone (including the teachers at the very top) are expected to have their own jobs or sources of income, and anyone who teaches 1) does so for free, and 2) pays all of the expenses related to teaching themselves. Those who do so (and I've been one of them) consider this an honor and an opportunity to advance spiritually, not an imposition. Perhaps this last paragraph should serve as an answer to Buck's question about "where to send people who can't afford TM but want to learn to meditate." *He* knows how to teach people to meditate, if I remember correctly. Couldn't he just do so, for free? And if someone dares to say, "No, he couldn't, because the TM organization that Maharishi founded wouldn't like it or wouldn't allow it," doesn't that kinda make my point for me? Maharishi's idea of "giving" was that it was unidirec- tional; everyone was expected to give to him. The TMO he left behind him continues with that same expectation. > ________________________________ > From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:40 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Giving > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > This three-minute clip is an ad, for a Thai telecommunications > company. > > That said, you'll want to watch it, because it contains better > > storytelling > > in those three minutes (not to mention a more uplifting message) than > > most of the full-length movies produced these days. > > > > > http://gawker.com/this-three-minute-commercial-puts-full-length-hollywoo\ > d-1309506149 od-1309506149> > > I couldn't help noticing that the two ego-bots preferred the film about > people doing something nice for themselves to the film about people > doing something nice for other people. What do you think *that* reveals > about the long-term effects of the TM program? > > :-) >
