--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, it is really quite incredible that these TM Rajas should even be > > > going against Guru Dev's very certain spiritual advice to make use of our > > > time on earth particularly by being with saints. > > > > Oh Please! They are not going against Guru Dev, they are trying to follow > > the guidelines set up by Maharishi himself long ago. > > Now, leave Guru Dev out of this, we don't know what he would have said. > > > >MMY was entirely clear about all of this and never ever budged from his > >position. > > Maharishi was clear, at times. This policy, I know, has consolitated during > the final period of his life, but it wasn't always the same. And Maharishi > could make exceptions to this rule, as I already said, for example in > Lelystad. I don't blame you if you don't know that, but he did budge from his > position. But in setting up 'rules', he would have to teach the > administration, and usually was strong about it, I agree. > > > The Rajas have to decide to make changes that MMY never did > > He did. The rules before were different (for example before the Muktananda > event), and he would make exceptions himself. > > > Now, maybe Maharishi would have changed this rule by now, but don't blame > > the Rajas or anyone else. This rule came from Maharishi and he was BLUNT > > about it. > > I am sure he was blunt to the administration. Yet, as you say yourself, it > may be time for a change. The Rajas had no problem skipping the > always-wear-a-crown thing, or inviting Beatles back, and even more so, use > them for publicity, something unthinkable when Maharishi was still alive. And > they even loosened the saints rule a bit, don't forget, but what I suggest > is, keep these changes logical and transparent. > > What is illogical? > > There is a common belief in India, that once you have found your Guru, you > don't need anybody else, right? We have Maharishi, we don't need Ammachi (or > whoever), thats what you would hear in private conversations. That is to say, > a Guru-Disciple relationship is assumed. The problem here is, that the TM > movement is not at all upfront that this is the case. They are not telling, > that Maharishi is our guru, but he is supposed only to be the founder of TM, > at least publicly. Now, hence the confusion. > > Now, with regard to Maharishi being 'Guru', if he is a Guru to the TM people > involved, to what people exactly? All TM teachers? Also TM teachers who are > not really teachers anymore? And: Do they know this? > > Next: if we assume, that Maharishi is a guru to the people, which is not > publicly said, it would be still possible, that people see different saints, > as long as they don't take teaching from them, or rather as long as they > don't become their disciples *simultaneausly*. > > There is an example often cited within TM, referring to Guru Dev, not seeing > another saint or speaker, who comes to town, while all the Gurubhais go > there. He stays in the Ashram, as his heart is completely filled with his > master. Now a guest comes, nobody is in the Ashram to receive him, except > Guru Dev, taking care of him, and finally the master finds out about the > story, and viola, GD is just the most dedicated and devoted disciple. > > When citing this story, to TM teachers or sidhas, they usually forget to say: > GD was having a relationship with his master that was personal throughout, he > lived with him, he watched him daily, and he lived in his vibration. He had a > PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP to his master. But most people concerned from these > policies, may even never have seen Maharishi, or any enlightened at all! That > is what Buck is pointing out completely rightly: GD says it is very important > to seek the company of saints! But, not being able to see Maharishi anymore, > or even ever, the people are deprived from this. > > And then: in the example cited above, GD was so devoted that he stayed in the > Ashram, while all others saw the saint/speaker. Do you notice two things? > There was NO RULE in the Ashram to not see other saints, they did so with > permission. And second, when GD stayed, he did so OUT OF HIS OWN WILL, out of > his spontaneous devotion, not an IMPOSED SHOW OF DEVOTION. > > Two elements are present here: sponatneity of devotion, and I think that is > the only devotion worth considering, and a real and lively guru-disciple > relationship. Now, consider yourself: is this the case in TM? Obviously not > for most people, obviously less so for more and more people since Maharishi > withdrew in Holland, and since time passes ofter his demiss. There will come > a time, not too far away, where there will be nobody anymore, who has a > living memory of Maharishi. If you keep the rules up like this, you will be > just a cult. >
Excellent points and I agree on all counts. I know that my response was coming from trying thru several posts over a long length of time - to get Buck to see that this is not a Raja problem, it is a policy that began with MMY. You may have heard him budge on it, but I was in and around for a long time and he was always crystal clear about not going to see other saints, and it was open knowledge for all teachers. You knew that if you did this and got seen, you could not attend courses or get advanced techniques or go to the Domes. I don't agree with that, but my point is that it was clear. I especially like your point about having a guru disciple relationship - you nailed it. Without that relationship, these TMO rules seem really harsh and unreasonable. So we were asked to act as if we had this discipleship going on, but were not in much contact with MMY andc ertainly got no personal guidance. Personally, I hope they change the rules, but I am annoyed by Buck's ongoing blame of the Rajas for this rule.
