This occurance of the floods is a pretty big splash in the face for those who are invested in group program. According to everything we know about the ME, this should not have happened. And now (new) cracks are starting to appear, forcing people to grasp for far fetched explanations. Jim postulated a little ways back, that the ME was just a ploy by M to get people to focus on their "program", and personal development, and really had little to do with "changing the world." It may be that those who were practicing under this assumption, will either have to update their belief system, or take their leave. As well, the stock market should not be where it is, according to the pronouncements. Nothing wrong with group program, or focusing on your PE. I did it for many years. It's just, how do you get your head around this latest deal.
I always enjoy hearing Bob's explanation. Rising world consciousness is not a linear rise. It always has plenty of detours. That's fine, but the ME effect hasn't exactly demonstrated strong correlations between cause and effect. --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "koesje1958" <koesje1958@> wrote: > > > > This bad weather, etc. should not be happening, if the ME is valid. > > > > I sincerely believe there is a real possibility those young 19 year > > old Pandits needs a serious Meditation Checking as they may be > > straining in their TM Sidhi practice, doing some kind of migiven > > Concentration technique and thereby producing 0 ME. > > Isn't this a fascinating statement? > > First he says (paraphrased), If the bad weather is > happening in Iowa, given what the TMO has said about > the nature of the ME, then the ME itself is not valid. > > And THEN his conclusion is that there must be some- > thing wrong with the way that the pundits are prac- > ticing TM and the TM-siddhis. It's *unthinkable* that > the ME itself is not valid. > > My suggestion is that you rethink your second para- > graph or leave it out and stick with the first one. > That's what people who are not desperately trying > to shore up their belief in something they've bought > into for years as "Truth" would do. > > Your approach is the same as that used to "explain > away" serious side effects of TM practice in the > past -- blame someone for "not doing it right" rather > than to look into the practice itself. This technique > was used to explain away hundreds of "heavy unstressers" > at courses in Fiuggi, it was used to explain away a > murder on the MUM campus, and it will be used in the > future to explain away anything that doesn't jibe with > the TM dogma. > > Another approach is to question the TM dogma. Occam's > Razor, dude. The simplest explanation is most likely > the correct explanation. >
