--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > Barry is, of course, completely correct in his analysis below. > > As I've written here many times, the change of course that MMY took was what > was responsible for the death of the TM Movement...AND IT CONTINUES TO THIS > DAY. > > And I remember that, ironically, it was Charlie Lutes who warned MMY (I'm > sure there must have been dozens more!) that coming out with the Sidhis and > the flying in the way he did would destroy the movement. I think that's > either in Paul Mason's book or Nancy Cooke de Herrera's book, ironically > titled "Beyond Gurus", which is what TM was SUPPOSED to be about. > > Back in '76 before the change took place, the TMO was on track to initiating > millions. That ALL came to a grinding halt with the sidhis and the flying. > One wonders where we'd be today if things had been done differently...or, > rather, by the same formula that got them the original success. > > My big complaint is that as one who subscribes to the ORIGINAL TM "path", > that there is virtually no support for people like me in the TMO. And I > suppose that's okay because it's supposed to be a "do it yourself" program. > > But it sure is lonely here.
Without a social foundation the tmorg will wither and die, look at how old most of the Raja's are. A prosperous thriving institution must have social outlets where like minds can meet, marry and further the goals of the institution. I think MMY was more interested in conquering the World with his message of "Yoga-lite for modernity"; (I think he even said he was in a hurry) his mission was perhaps macrocosmic in scope and not targeted towards the individual like a Sat-Guru's would be! Never the less, Yoga-lite is better than NO TM/Yoga at all!! by far! TM, as taught, is introductory Yoga for the masses...... > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Recent talk of "needing a guru" here has reminded me > > of a phenomenon that many TB TMers are either unaware > > of (because they started TM so much later than others > > here and thus missed the earlier teachings) or they > > have blotted out the earlier teachings from their minds > > (because they don't want to deal with the fact that > > Maharishi completely reversed himself). > > > > I call this phenomenon the "Maharishi Flip-Flop." It's > > where Maharishi started his "career" as a spiritual > > teacher teaching one thing -- emphatically -- and then > > LATER "flip-flopped" and began teaching or doing > > *exactly the opposite* of what he had said/taught before. > > > > The most famous example of this, of course, is the siddhis. > > In courses throughout the late 60s, Maharishi was clear > > to the point of being emphatic that they were dangerous > > and should *not* be pursued by spiritual seekers. The whole > > "capture the fort" analogy was *invented* as a reply to > > students who asked about the siddhis and how to achieve > > them. MMY's teaching *at that time* was that it was safer > > to "capture the fort," and allow such siddhis to blossom > > on their own, if they did. He definitely *discouraged* > > people from ever trying to achieve the siddhis. > > > > Of course, we all know how that turned out. And a number > > of us here probably now feel that his earlier teaching > > -- before the flip-flop -- was more correct. > > > > But for me, the "Maharishi Flip-Flop" teaching that has > > had the most debilitating effect on students, and has > > thus incurred the most negative karma, is the flip-flop > > he made on "gurus" and whether one should rely on them > > when it comes to advice on how to live one's life. > > > > I remember Maharishi clearly addressing this issue in > > response to a question from the audience, the first time > > I ever saw him, in 1967. The person asked him for advice > > on how to resolve a quandary or problem in his life. In > > effect, the questioner was asking Maharishi to make the > > decision for him -- tell him what to do, give him the > > "right" answer. > > > > Maharishi categorically refused to do so, and explained why. > > He said, "If I tell you what to do...what decision to make > > ...what happens the *next* time you need to make a decision? > > You'll come running to me asking me to make it for you." > > > > He then went on to give a long talk on how the idea of > > "gurus" telling their students what to do and how to live > > was a *mistake*, because "It makes the students weaker. > > As they become dependent on the guru or teacher to make > > decisions for them, they lose the ability to make decisions > > themselves." At this point, as he always did, Maharishi > > segued into a discussion of TM, and how theoretically it > > would enable the student to become stronger and more able > > to make his OWN decisions, and not need anyone to make > > them for him. > > > > Cut to only a few years later, and how Maharishi began to > > treat the meditators and TM teachers who had "signed on" to > > the TM movement. It was a complete and total flip-flop. He > > began to dictate what they should wear and not wear, what > > they should eat and not eat, what they should believe and > > not believe, and who they should hang around with and not > > hang around with. It is not unfair to say that on courses > > *every* aspect of a TM student's life was dictated to him; > > every minute of every day was *literally* "being told what > > to do," by the guru. And soon this "being told what to do" > > began to creep over into the lives of the TM teachers when > > they were *not* on courses as well. > > > > And I think that most here have seen the debilitating > > effects of coming to rely on Maharishi to tell them what > > to do. Tens of thousands of TM teachers literally *lost > > their ability* to think for themselves and make their own > > decisions for many, many years. Some still have never > > regained their ability to think for themselves and make > > their own decisions, and to this day fall back on quoting > > scripture or quotes from Maharishi's old talks as the > > basis for all of their own decisions. > > > > I suggest that this "flip-flop" had far more of a karmic > > effect -- and a negative karmic effect -- than the flip- > > flop about the siddhis. As with the siddhis, Maharishi > > was IMO more correct in his original teaching. And what > > supports that opinion is taking that early teaching -- > > that it will eventually make the students weaker, not > > stronger -- and applying it to what most of us have > > actually seen happening to thousands of TM teachers. > > > > TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO AND MAKING THEIR > > DECISIONS FOR THEM HAS MADE THEM WEAKER. > > MANY ARE TO THIS DAY INCAPABLE OF MAKING > > THEIR OWN DECISIONS, AND HAVE TO RELY ON > > SOMEONE ELSE TO MAKE THEM FOR THEM. > > > > IMO Maharishi should have stuck with his original insights > > and his original teachings, both about the siddhis and > > about telling people what to do and making their decisions > > for them. Imagine how different the history of the TM > > movement might have been if he had. > > >
