--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > Well then, it sounds like there is far more flexibility than > the complaints have lead me to believe.
Lawson, just as a question, how can you possibly justify any *lack* of flexibility, or the banning process at all? I mean, the only even semi-rational reason anyone has ever given for it is that some are afraid (and "afraid" IS the right word) that people could possibly practice Some Other Technique while in the domes. So here's the question -- do you think that would actually *affect* anything? You and others have been very vocal in the past about TM's "bestness" and "most effectiveness" as a technique of meditation; ditto for the TM-Sidhis. In a fairly recent presentation, one TM bigwig went so far as to claim (complete with LED visual aid...LEDs must be a big thing lately) that individual meditators' thoughts while practicing the Sidhis were "10,000 times more power- ful than normal people's thoughts." So you're afraid that one or two people practicing some "lesser" technique in the domes is gonna fuck up all that Woo Woo? Seems to me if that were the fear, they'd have to have ten thousand evildoers practicing something else to interfere with the powerful Woo Woo of each TM-Sidhi practitioner, right? Bottom line is that you are justifying the unjustifiable. Neither the TMO nor anyone else has the right to tell people what to believe and who they can visit as spiritual teachers. This policy is a technique used *by the fearful* to make others afraid and control them. *Especially* if Maharishi regularly made exceptions to his own ill- conceived rule when he was alive. The other bottom line is that if people about to take the TM-Sidhi course were told *in advance* that they would never again be allowed to see any other spiritual teacher and still participate in the group practice of the Sidhis, no one would sign up. They'd take one look at the policy, murmur "Cult" under their breath, and walk away. It takes a real, case-hardened cultist to either accept the policy, or justify it. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > As has been said before, many times, Maharishi himself is the person who > > > established this "link" between seeing other saints or teachers and being > > > banned from TM courses and Domes and advanced programs. > > > > This is true and cannot be denied. But it is also true that Maharishi had > > several policies with this regard over the time, for example Muktananda was > > even invited to Seelisberg, he also send many people to see saints in the > > past, not just to Anandamayi Ma and Lakshmanjoo. > > > > And even when his policy hardened, he kept it still liberal at certain > > places, like in Lelystad, Holland, where he gave siddhas explicit > > permission to see Mother Meera for example, something that led to being > > banned in Skelmersdale at the same time. > > > > And it is also true, that he said, that a governor can do anything, he > > should just keep his mouth shut about it. And then finally the Rajas are > > okay if Sidhas go to the Dome who saw other saints, unless they are > > involved in organizing for them, and unless they are teachers (albeit even > > inactive ones). > > >
