--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > <snip> > > > I beleive that Maharishi has "total knowledge," so do I, so do > > > you. It is conceivable, at least to me,that MMY's access > > > to "total knowledge" is "better" than mine, but that's not the > > > same thing as saying he's perfect. > > > > > > I think the B&W thinking represents a misunderstanding of what > > > MMY means by the term. > > > > I suspect it ties into something Jim Flanegin said > > earlier: > > > > "IMO Maharishi is demonstrating regularly and spectacularly to > > anyone that pays attention to him that enlightenment or awakening > > or Brahman or whatever you want to call it, is NOT achieved by > > following the Master. > > > [...]> Not necessarily. With regard to those in eternal > > freedom, all bets are off. We can't evaluate whether > > a person does or does not have "total knowledge" by > > what they do.
Note: My "not necessarily" did NOT refer to what I quoted Jim as saying immediately above. My train of thought was snipped. > I think this is an entirely different issue than what MMY talks > about when he says things along the lines of "total knowledge." MMY > allows "Maharishi" to be used in the name of the university he > founded, etc., because "Maharishi" means someone who teaches others > how to become enlightened. The essential core of MMY's teaching > is "self-sufficiency," as Muktananda allegedly has said. TM is > about finding the "home of all the laws of nature" within, not > about following the dictates of an all-knowing guru. But isn't this the very point Jim was making? It was certainly the point I wanted to bring out. Again, if "total knowledge" means anything, it means being able to say and do what people need to hear and see for their own development of consciousness. But that does *not* imply absolute obedience; to the contrary, it may imply exactly the opposite, depending on the person doing the hearing/seeing. For example, if a teacher sits around saying only things that are bland and noncontroversial, one might feel so comfortable that one is never moved to do one's own thinking or explore one's own impulses and intuition. Hearing stuff to which one has strong objections, however, might well inspire one to break with the teacher and go off on one's own. Does that mean what the teacher has said that one objects to is wrong? Not necessarily. We can't know that for sure, we can only make our best judgment. If the teacher has "total knowledge," however, we *could* assume he's right to say to us what he said because of the reaction it will inspire in us, positive or negative. The point being that the bottom line is *always* our own judgment. Having a teacher who has "total knowledge" does NOT relieve us of the responsibility of making such judgments. I don't disagree with any of what you go on to say, but I can't figure out what it has to do with the point I was trying to make... > > Regardless, the issue of denying access to the Domes and so on isn't > directly about whose Kung Fu is more powerful anyway: > > When the TMO denies dome access to followers (or even *Possible* > followers) of other gurus, its not out of disrespect to the other > gurus, or out of a need to keep MMY's "knowledge" "pure" in the sense > it is usually meant by the TMO, but simply due to a pragmatic desire > to ensure that everyone who is practicing techniques during group > program at TMO facilities is practicing the techniques that MMY > taught, on the assumption that the group practice of those techniques > is more powerful than the singular practiceand that practice of other > techniques, at best, will conceal how many are participating, and at > worst might somehow interfere with the expected effects. > > Other issues creep in like fear of "contamination" and so on, but > that's as much (in my mind) due to the TMO managers' own hangups as > to anything else. > > Regardless, the TMO hierarchy appears to err on the side of caution, > and while it seems often that they ARE in error in how they implement > the policy of reserving group practice time in the TMO's domes to > exclude group practice of other teachers' techniques, they ARE > succeeding, on the whole, in keeping other teachers' techniques out > of the TMO-sponsored group practice. > > For them to fail to act at all would be to fail in their assigned > duties to the TMO. We can disagree on whether or not their policies > are too strict, but certainly the policies seem to be having the > stated desired outcome of ensuring that ONLY the techniques taught by > MMY are performed in the Domes during group practice. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/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/
