It seems that some Kings and Emperors and Dictators are afraid to be forgotten when they die, so they build something in the world to be remembered. When the tallest building in India is finished,everyone will remember MMY and forget all the TM-Teachers and devoted Meditators and Sidhas that with their work and economical support made it possible. Ingegerd
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, George DeForest < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert > > > Wednesday, July 27, 2005 5: 13 PM PDT > > > > > > World's tallest tower planned in India > > > Gulf Daily News Wed, 27 Jul 2005 4:00 PM PDT > > > CHICAGO: A 224-storey pyramid shaped building, the tallest in the > > > world, is being built at Katangi, near Indian city of Jabalpur in > > > Madhya Pradesh state. > > Good post Turquoise. The book "The Guru Papers" mentions how gurus > often come up with gradiose plans near the end of their mission -- a > few relevant paragraphs are quoted below. I don't agree with all of > Kramer's hypothesis in that book, but feel it is worth discussing: > > "Most cults follow a predictable progression of two distinct stages, > which indicates that what is involved is more a function of how > authoritarian structures work than of the particular teachings of a > given guru. > > This first stage is messianic with the message being that all labors > of the organization, including the guru's, are aimed at a higher > purpose beyond the group, such as saving mankind. During this phase > the guru is confident that he will eventually be acknowledged as the > one who will lead the world out of darkness. The major emphasis is > on proselytizing to bring in new converts. The continual increase in > numbers satisfies the guru's need for power and adulation. While > there is still hope of becoming the acknowledged herald of a new > order, he remains happy and relatively behing in his treatment of > those who have surrendered to him. > > As long as the guru still sees the possibility of realizing his > ambitions, the way he exercises power is through rewarding the > enthusisams of his followers with praise and positions in his > hierarchy. He also whets and manipulates desire by offering carrots > and promising that through him the disciples' desires will be > realized, possibly even in this lifetime. The group itself becomes an > echo of the guru, with the members filling each other's needs. > Everthing seems perfect: everyone is moving along the appropriate > spiritual path. The guru is relatively accessible, charming, even > fun. All dreams are realizable, even wonderful possibilities beyond > one's ken. > > A time inevitably comes when the popularity and power of the group > plateaus and then begins to wane. Eventually it becomes obvious that > the guru is not going to take over the world, at least not in the > immediate future. When the realization comes that humanity is > too stupid or blind to acknowledge that higher authority and wisdom of > the guru, the apocalyptic phase enters and the party is over. Then > one of two things generally happens: the first is that the guru's > message turns pessimistic or doomsday ... The other possibility is > that in order to attract more people, the guru makes increasingly > extreme promises and bizarre claims that offer occult powers, quick > enlightenment, or even wish fulfillment in the mundane sphere around > wealth, love, and power... > > When the guru realizes that most people are not going to acknowledge > him, he often compensates, if he can afford it, by building monumental > edifices that proclaim his greatness. This includes monuments or > temples, buildings, model communities and learning centers... Often he > consciously or unconsciously blames those around him for the failure > of his messianic aspirations. This stage commonly results in scandal > and tragedy." > > > > This announcement has retriggered for me something I > > was thinking about last week. It seems to me, as part of > > my ongoing study of different spiritual traditions, that they > > tend to fall into two broad categories with regard to > > the "good works" they choose to perform. > > > > There are the traditions or organizations that think in terms > > of Grand Gestures (big flashy buildings, "saving the world," > > enlightening all of humanity, etc.) and then there are the > > traditions and organizations that "think smaller." The latter, > > when it comes to selfless service and "putting energy back > > into the system," tend to think in terms of treating everyone > > one encounters during the day with respect, doing their > > best for them, stuff like that. The former (the "Grand Gesture" > > traditions) on the whole *don't* seem to think of selfless > > service as something that you do all day, every day, on a > > personal and interpersonal level. > > > > I've noticed that the people within the "Grand Gesture" groups > > often tend to reserve their feeling of performing selfless > > service *for* the Grand Gestures. They scrimp and save to > > be able to donate to the big fundraising projects for the > > Grand Gestures. But at the same time, they *rarely* seem > > to put much energy into the *daily* performance of selfless > > service in terms of doing the best they can for the people > > whom they interact with in their lives. > > > > Sometimes it seems that the Grand Gestures are a way to > > *fool* the people in the organizations into believing that > > they're actually creating good karma and doing something > > good in the world, while they spend the majority of their > > everyday lives looking down on the people they meet and > > treating them with disdain, and from a platform of moral > > and spiritual superiority. Then you've got the folks like > > the Buddhist monks I used to meet in Santa Fe, who use > > their *everyday lives* as the vehicle for selfless service. > > Every person they meet is looked upon as an opportunity > > to put some energy back into the system, to do good for > > others. The difference is profound to witness and experience. > > > > It's an overgeneralization, but I think it's to some extent > > an accurate one. Me, I tend to prefer being around the > > people who "walk the walk" of the spiritual life on a daily > > basis rather than the ones who save up their "good works" > > for the occasional Grand Gesture. The Rama trip was all > > about Grand Gestures, and it wound up creating a group > > of people who put a lot of money into teaching meditation > > for free, but who treated the people they worked with and > > the people they ran into on the streets like shit. I've cer- > > tainly seen the same thing in the TMO. And then there > > were the traditions I've encountered since who put their > > focus on treating everyone they met with respect and > > trying to do their best for them, and allowed the Grand > > Gestures to take care of themselves. > > > > Just a pre-coffee rap... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
