--- In [email protected], "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ---Well, it is good to doubt everything; that way you don't have to > put your faith in anything; that's ok, I guess.
I actually *do* believe that it is good to doubt everything. That does *not*, however, mean that one no longer has faith in things or in people. By exercising one's critical faculties, and by actually *using* faculties such as memory, one can see after a while whether the pronouncements and claims of a particular teacher work out, or whether they do not. If they work out, then that teacher may be a candidate for faith (while still retaining one's critical faculties, of course). If the pronouncements and the predictions and the grand schemes NEVER work out, and no one in the organization even dares to *mention* that the previous schemes and pronouncements NEVER seem to work out, where is the basis for faith? I actually have a level of faith in several spiritual teachers. Nothing they have ever said that I have heard has been proven untrue by my experience, or by the objective world. Nothing they have ever said about how one should live one's daily life has ever conflicted with how they live their daily lives. Everything they have ever taught me has proved useful over the long run. They deserve my respect, and a certain measure of faith that when they say some- thing in the future, it may also be useful and correct. Compare and contrast to my personal experience with Maharishi. ONE thing has proved itself true and useful in my experience with him -- the basic, original TM tech- nique. Almost everything else has not -- I found the advanced techniques useless, the Siddhis more than useless, the advice about yoga useless and incorrect, and the advice about lifestyle completely contradictory to happiness and fulfillment. When it comes to his "pred- ictions" and "pronouncements" and his grand schemes, there is even *less* substance. Plus, he's mistreated people along the way and lived a life that was *very* different than the one he espoused. In my book, that does not inspire faith, or even respect. > Many people feel that way about everything these days, not just > Maharishi, but every level of society, religion, government, courts, > every level, is basically full of crap, right? Not at all. Sturgeon's Law, in which I firmly believe, states that 95% of everything is crap. But there is still that 5%. And that is more than enough to keep hope and faith alive. I just try my best not to piss my faith away on those who don't deserve it. > There are always doubting Thomas'; but if we we're all doubting > Thomas' -well that would be so boring..and us rebellious one's would > have nothing to rebel against... If you think about it, Thomas was the only rational member of Christ's disciples. :-) That's part of what makes "The Gospel According To Thomas" so interesting. It's the testimony of a rational man -- a critic and a cynic and a doubter -- who found something to believe in *anyway*. THAT, in my opinion, is faith well placed. > In [email protected], "Ingegerd" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MMY makes hope. 3-4 years ago an old TM-Teacher called me, she was > > listening to the Satellite Channel with News from MMY > organisations > > every day. And one day it was told that a day in June that Year (I > > cannot remember the exact day) Heaven of Earth should rise. Pretty > > much like what has been saying about Sat Yoga these days. The TM- > > Teacher really believed that the world would change from that > date, > > that she the next morning would wake up to a New World. Because > that > > was what MMY had said. I do not know in what way she reacted when > it > > did not happen, because I went to be a Non Grata person in the > TMO. > > But I guess that MMYs devotees are clinging to what ever hope MMY > is > > sending out, because they cannot face the reality that maybe - > maybe - > > MMY is wrong. > > Ingegerd > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "Robert Gimbel" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > --- Well, maybe it's just that Maharishi seems to like to put > all > > of > > > > the emphasis on one thing at a time. > > > > > > I'd phrase it differently. He likes to focus his students' > > > attention on one thing at a time. He uses the Next Big > > > Thing to inspire hope in those who are on the verge of > > > losing it and keep them around in the movement and > > > contributing money. > > > > > > > In the beginning, it was just do TM; then it was take SCI, and > be > > a > > > > teacher; then it was do the siddhis, then it was do the > siddhis > > in > > > > the dome, then it was Ayurveda, and Jyotish, and now it's > > palaces, > > > > rajas, vyastu achetechure, and so on... > > > > > > > > But the whole thing is still based in the unmanifest, > according > > to > > > > Maharishi's teaching: everything comes out of the unmanimest > > field > > > > of pure consciousness; > > > > > > Only in the sense that creation is so based. > > > > > > > So, it's still TM that will get you there, to pure > consciousness; > > > > All of the rest are just branches of the tree, expressions of > > pure > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > That really ISN'T the message, if you're paying attenton. > > > Where is the emphasis on teaching people to *contact* > > > this pure consciousness? How many people worldwide > > > actually started TM in the last year or so? My bet is that > > > the total number (other than schools in India where students > > > are forced to learn TM) is probably about a couple of dozen. > > > > > > ALL of the emphasis seems to be on the "branches," with > > > none left for the main trunk, much less the roots. > > > > > > > Like Shakti Gawain, spoke about in "Creative Visualization" > it's > > > > good to visualize what you want, especially on the level of > > feeling, > > > > and leave a space open for it to happen; be open to the > > possibility > > > > of it happening. > > > > Maharishi, has enormous visions of things which he visualizes > > would > > > > and could be possible, and he focuses on these one project at > a > > > > time, until he sees how far each new concept goes. > > > > > > And then he drops each failed project like a hot potato, > > > keeps all the money and the real estate that was "donated" > > > for the project, and never mentions it again. The students > > > are expected to do the same, and have no memory of any > > > of the failed projects. It's pretty astounding how many of > > > them do exactly that. > > > > > > > But, it is true, that all of this teaching originated, or was > > > > revived with Swami Bramananda Saraswati, , alone in the remote > > > > forest, with no palace, living in the most simple and humble > > way,; > > > > so we can assume that the "Capture of the Fort", of pure > > > > consciousness, is still and always will be of primary > relevance.. > > > > > > IS it "true?" I certainly don't assume that TM originated with > > > Guru Dev. I have never seen anything that suggests that > > > Guru Dev ever taught such a technique as TM. 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/
