--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote: > > Zarzari786, I have just come through a long and arduous interview probing > process in re-applying for a dome badge.
Was it like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOPXgBflM8I (I heard this came out from this group, maybe even you? Very funny.) > Much of the consideration was around this client-centered vs. membership-cult > as you frame it. It was very much around the difference between client > practitioners and membership devotee types. > It doesn't mean that clients couldn't be devotees. This is one of the biggest misunderstanings I think: devotion cannot be enforced. Devotion comes from the soul, and there are no role models for it. There is nothing like being a good boy, and then you are more devoted. > That is a fair distinction within TM. On the one hand we got some more > progressive people who tend to be more over in the Hagelin camp who would > like to see it work out for practitioners, while on the other hand are the > more strict preservationists around Bevan. Hagelin can easily represent the TM in a good way. I know quite a few people, who have nothing to do with TM, but like the way Hagelin talks. Bevan sounds like a cult leader. Nader is more or less not present. >Some of these later conservatives are like the Taliban in that they are >ruthless in their position. The progressives are more sympathetic towards >working it out for practitioner-clients. Right now the Bevan-ista doctrinaire >disciples have more power than the Hagelin-ites. > -Buck Interesting. I think in many movements, when the leader dies, there is a tendency towards dogmatism, you can observe this everywhere. There is always a group of people who want to freeze the old ideals, and take control over it. Also, as you mentioned, you are not being told the reasons, or the way the discussion went, and the people who make the decisions about you stay anonymous, invisble to you. Something similar happens in other spritual movements as well, and is a sign of becoming more of a religious cult. Just read what Raja Emmanuel said to Joerg, it is typical of the frozen dogmatism of a cult. The TM can honestly only survive if the more liberal group wins, which I doubt at this moment. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > Zarzari786 excellent critique here. And, welcome too to FFL. > > Fairfieldlife is proly the best place to give input to the TMO from the > > outside as it does get read and digested by everybody inside. > > -Buck > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I couldn't agree more with what you say here. If Adiraj, Maharaj, > > > whatever is anything close to a Maharishi successor, he should go out and > > > make a lecture tour about TM, or whatever they think they have to offer. > > > > > > He should be able to publicly stand for the program, embody it to > > > everyone. This is what the Maharishi did. TM started out as a client > > > cult, that is to say, it was not based on membership, discipleship, but > > > rather directed to the general public, you simply could sign up for > > > courses. The same was true for Ayurveda, which did not require TM > > > membership, and many other programs that followed. > > > Now TM is more and more like a membership club, more like a traditional > > > religion. > > > > > > Compare that 'badge' approach to, lets say Ammachi, Karunamayi, Mother > > > Meera and others, where anyone can come, anyone has access. Now that > > > openess is the new style. > > > > > > TM at it's time was new style, client centered, but has sort of regressed > > > into more of a membership cult. The new thing in this time is something > > > completely open, there are too many things out there, too many > > > meditations which you can pick. Any kind of elitism will not work. People > > > select from different sources and pick what suits them best. And that is > > > how it should be. And for me, openness, like open source is a > > > precondition. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds really good - glad you were able to go. > > > > > > > > > > Yep, I have to thank Raja John Hagelin for granting me an > > > > > exemption to attend the meeting. It was very nice . > > > > > > > > Thank you for providing this information, Buck. > > > > I was going to ask how someone who was recently > > > > turned down for a dome pass got to attend. And > > > > I'm happy that you *got* to attend, if you found > > > > it valuable or meaningful. Really. > > > > > > > > But doesn't it just say it all that a "knowledge > > > > meeting," the purpose of which is to supposedly > > > > disseminate Maharishi's wisdom (second-hand though > > > > it may be) to those who could benefit from it, > > > > could be or should ever be conceived of as "only > > > > for those we deem worthy of it?" And then having > > > > that concept *enforced*? > > > > > > > > I mean, this is spiritual elitism taken to a > > > > whole new level. > > > > > > > > Y'know...just speaking to "Buck," > > > > the thing I used to enjoy more than anything else > > > > when I was still into the spiritual teacher thang > > > > was seeing them face the toughest test any teacher > > > > could ever face. That is, giving an intro lecture. > > > > > > > > Spiritual teachers get LAZY when they've been > > > > surrounded by adoring followers for years, or > > > > decades. They give "knowledge talks" LAZILY, > > > > forgetting to dot the i's and cross the t's. > > > > They don't *need* to. They know that they are > > > > speaking to an audience composed of people who > > > > have all drunk the Kool-Aid, and are going to > > > > believe *anything* the teacher says. > > > > > > > > I used to love seeing teachers who had large > > > > organizations full of people whose duty it was > > > > to give the intro lectures to the great unwashed > > > > step away from the pomp and circumstance and do > > > > it themselves. That is, give a talk to an audience > > > > composed largely of people who *hadn't* drunk the > > > > Kool-Aid, who *didn't* believe all the things that > > > > the True Believers in the audience did. And pull > > > > it off. Almost as if they *remembered* what it > > > > was like to talk to such an audience. > > > > > > > > That's a "tough audience." The one created in > > > > an environment that says by definition "the only > > > > people allowed into the room are the ones we deem > > > > 'worthy' of being there, in that they already pre- > > > > agree with everything that's going to be said," > > > > that's an "easy audience." > > > > > > > > I have very little interest in hearing what King > > > > Tony has to say to any "easy audience." But I'd > > > > actually be interested to hear what he says to > > > > a "tough audience." No entry requirements. No > > > > badges to be shown. Just people, filing in to > > > > fill the seats and hear how the supposed leader > > > > of a supposedly still-important spiritual move- > > > > ment talks its talk. > > > > > > > > In my not so humble opinion, someone willing to > > > > expose themselves to the public only in situations > > > > in which he gets to predetermine the "loyalty > > > > factor" or "pre-programming" of the audience just > > > > isn't worth listening to. I'm gonna hold out for > > > > those who will talk to anyone...no preconditions, > > > > no expectations. > > > > > > > > But, that said, was there anything *in particular* > > > > he said that resonated with you? You are often > > > > WAY too vague on this forum. Just as I'd like to > > > > see King Tony deal with a real world audience for > > > > once, I'd like to see you get real with us for > > > > once and tell us what still gets you off about > > > > the TM dogma. > > > > > > > > > >
