--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Oh those are excellent points! Not really. See below.
> From: navashok > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:34 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Legal fight over calming technique lacks harmony > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > Are you saying the non-recertified Governors wouldn't have the > > > expertise to know??? > > > > Only recertified governors would know whether what Knowles > > is teaching is exactly the same as what recertified > > governors were certified to teach--i.e., if recertification > > involved any changes prescribed by Maharishi from how TM > > was taught previously. > > In this case, if there were any significant changes due to > recertification, in terms of scientific research relating > to it, it would actually mean that the TM of the indies > would be more authentic than the one of the recerts. > Because most research was probably done with people who > learned TM before recertification. Right. But only if the changes were significant. The changes wouldn't need to be significant for purposes of the legal case. They could just be cosmetic as far as the effects were concerned. The folks deciding the case wouldn't be in a position to know the changes were just a subterfuge to discredit the independents. > > Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, I have no idea. I wouldn't > > put it past Maharishi, however, to have introduced some > > changes *in anticipation of what's going on now with the > > legal challenge to independents*. If the independents > > hadn't themselves been recertified, they wouldn't know > > about the changes and could therefore be shown not to > > be teaching TM a la Maharishi when the issue arose. > > And that's a blow to the whole idea of 'purity of teaching'. Maharishi made changes of one sort or another all along, according to everything I've heard. Someone made that point here just very recently. But of course the teaching to be kept "pure" with regard to teaching the technique is not some independent standard but rather *Maharishi's* teaching as to how it should be taught. What Maharishi taught is the only reference with regard to purity. So any change Maharishi himself might have made is a red herring in that context. > Even the idea to change a technique for copyright reasons > seems abstruse to me. Where does this leave Maharishi? Seems to me the idea is pretty easy to understand. What confuses you about it? It would leave Maharishi as a clever--or sneaky, if you prefer--dude who anticipated this kind of legal challenge and devised a way to frustrate it in advance. In any case, it was just a speculation. Someone else said here recently that there weren't any changes, so if that's the case, the point is moot. For that matter, I believe it was the same person who said teachers who hadn't been recertified were still teaching under the TMO's auspices. If true, that makes the original point--that recerts would be the only ones who could verify that the independents were teaching the same thing as TMO-approved teachers--also moot. (I can't verify any of what others have said here, I'm just reporting it.) > > (I've always thought the whole recertification business > > and the rajas business were designed by Maharishi to > > weed out the less-than-totally-committed because he knew > > he wouldn't be around much longer and wanted to hand > > over the tightest possible ship to his successor, knowing > > that when he was gone it would be difficult to keep the > > movement from splintering.) > > > > > And the only definitive way for you and Judy to be satisfied > > > would be for a recertified governor to take the Vedic > > > meditation course itself to be really sure and in what > > > universe is that gonna happen > > > > If the TMO thought that would help its legal case, it could > > very well happen. > > > > BTW, "satisfied" doesn't mean quite what you're assuming > > where I'm concerned. I'm a long-term practitioner but not > > a TB in that sense. For me it's more a matter of > > intellectual curiosity; I don't really have a dog in the > > fight.
