Don't you guys who oppose this thing think it might be a mighty good idea to find out where the TM council members including the mayor stand? And especially MUM? Even tho its a university the fact that they are there, drawing in faulty, staff, and especially students plus the money they spend in the community makes them a force to be reckoned with locally.
If MUM opposed the coop, that would add weight to the opposition. If they didn't take a position on it, it would be rather irresponsible of them not to do so as a matter of community. On the other hand, I imagine the Heartland people are not above making a fat monetary contribution to the school to ensure their support or at least their silence on the matter which would mean mayor and both council members would be mum on the issue also, no pun intended. Be a good idea to find out where MUM stands. As much of a force as it is in the community, they stand to be your greatest ally or greatest Judas. ________________________________ From: "'Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:29 AM Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why Maharishi REALLY Hated Students 'Seeing Other Teachers' From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:47 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why Maharishi REALLY Hated Students 'Seeing Other Teachers' How many TM practitioners on Fairfield City Council besides the mayor? And what is their position on the Heartland Coop? And what position has MUM taken on the issue? John Revolinski and Connie Boyer. John probably opposes it. Don’t know about Connie. Not aware of MUM having taken a position. ________________________________ From:"'Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 12:58 PM Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why Maharishi REALLY Hated Students 'Seeing Other Teachers' From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 11:54 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why Maharishi REALLY Hated Students 'Seeing Other Teachers' A tape of that session from Rick's TTC was probably the one I saw on the second phase of my TTC and was called "Other Techniques." My tantra teacher and I would often go to visit other teachers in the area. My TTC was Estes Park. Just audio taped, not videotaped. But I believe such a session was held on every TTC, and probably still is. On 06/03/2014 08:59 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: >From:"'Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife]" ><FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > > >I never witnessed anything as intense as what Barry relates, but on our TTC, >part of the training was an evening in which we brought up every other >teacher/path/practice we could think of and Maharishi explained how and why TM >was superior. > >A rather odd thing to do in itself, if you think about it, but it's part of a >larger pattern -- give TM teachers "pat answers" to parrot whenever a question >arises. The more often they hear them and repeat them, the more they come to >actually believe them. > >I remember in one small meeting on my TTC when he gave such a "pat answer" >about a technique that someone in the audience of prospective TM teachers had >actually practiced before starting TM. The fellow stood up and said -- >politely -- that Maharishi was wrong in what he said, and that the practice in >question had *nothing* to do with the way that Maharishi had described it. The >person saying this was sent home the next day, and was never allowed to became >a teacher. At a later meeting on the same course, Maharishi repeated the same >incorrect putdown of that technique, now fully aware that it wasn't true. > >Also, when Muktananda came to Seelisberg, after he left, MMY reportedly >addressed his students in a way that suggested he was a bit nervous they might >have found Muktananda more alluring than he, and be tempted to change camps. > >I know someone from the Rama trip who was a Muktananda student, and who was >actually present at one of those meetings with Maharishi. Suffice it to say >that none of Muktananda's students needed such a "talking to," because were >completely underwhelmed by Maharishi. > >From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] >Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 2:09 PM >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why Maharishi REALLY Hated Students 'Seeing Other >Teachers' > > >I just skimmed this, and want to read it more carefully later. Your primary >involvement predated mine. > >I had the opportunity to see MMY personally many times, but usually not in a >small group, and usually not for administrative issues. > >But never during my time did this issue of seeing other teachers come up. > >I think it would be be helpful if we heard from another teacher who had the >opportunity for personal interaction such as Rick. > >The charges you make are pretty strong, and I think they bear a vetting by >someone who may have a less prejudiced attitude. > > > > >---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : >To provide some counterpoint to the chorus of excuses and cult apologetics >spouted lately by people like Jim, Judy, and Lawson, who were *never there* to >see how Maharishi "dealt with" those who committed the Cardinal Sin of "seeing >other teachers," I'll provide a bit more information. After all, unlike these >poseurs, I really *was* there, for many years, and sat in rooms with Maharishi >as he lit into *dozens* of people for this supposed "sin." They weren't. They >never even met Maharishi, and were never a part of his organization. > >My considered opinion is that he did this because he was -- in two words -- >JEALOUS and INSECURE. He wanted students who had never known any other >spiritual teacher than himself. In a sense he was *exactly* like those sad men >who want to marry a virgin, so they can (theoretically) forever avoid being >compared to another lover, and be found wanting. > >In the encounters I witnessed, Maharishi reacted to someone "seeing another >teacher" exactly the way an insecure husband reacts to his wife getting >"caught" checkin' out another handsome man. He was livid. His first reaction >was to try to make the person who had committed such a sin APOLOGIZE and >grovel in front of him, hopefully in front of as many people as possible, to >"make an example of them." If they didn't do that, and saw nothing wrong with >their actions, he would *seemingly* graciously tell them to leave, and go with >this other teacher. Then, the minute they left the room, he would start >bad-mouthing the former student and saying nasty things about them. He'd also >tell the people left in the room all about the terrible, horrible karmic >things that were going to happen to these sinners for having "fallen" and >wandered away from the "highest path." > >None of this had *anything* to do with any of these people "threatening the >organization," or even the other teachers being any kind of "threat." It had >to do with Maharishi's Victorian-era ideas of "devotion to the teacher." He >wanted them to think of him as if they were *married* to him, and to believe >that even *thinking* of "seeing someone else" was equivalent to "cheating on >him." > >In other words, he was Just Another Insecure Guy, wanting to be the One And >Only for his students, forever. Once the offending "cheaters" had been sent >away, he'd often lie about them mercilessly, telling stories that many of us >in the room *knew* not to be true. But everyone would remain silent and not >speak up, because *the example had been made*. The one time I saw a couple of >people speak up for someone he'd just excommunicated (Walter Bellin), and >point out that none of the nasty things Maharishi was saying about him were >true, Maharishi reacted by kicking them out, too. > >To repeat something I said earlier, this behavior is UNUSUAL in spiritual >practice. I have *never* encountered another spiritual teacher who did this. >With Rama, and with any of the other Tibetan or Japanese teachers I've studied >with, students were *encouraged* to visit other teachers, and learn whatever >they were teaching. OF COURSE they were encouraged to do this -- why on earth >would anyone want to stand in the way of normal, natural curiosity, otherwise >known as "the natural tendency of the mind?" > >But Maharishi not only tried to stand in the way of this natural desire to >learn more and expand one's spiritual experience, he PUNISHED people for doing >it. > >These cult apologists trying to make it sound as if he was doing this for >pragmatic business reasons WEREN'T THERE. They're just being cult apologists. >Those of us who watched him excommunicate dozens of people for the "sin" of >simply being curious know better. And so should those who also weren't there, >and are lurking on this forum wanting to learn more. Maharishi was UNIQUE in >not allowing his students to visit other spiritual teachers. And this >uniqueness wasn't a positive thing -- it was a perversion based on his own >insecurity, and his need to feel that he was the ONLY teacher in his students' >lives. He was a tiny little man with a large, fragile ego, and he did this >because that ego was threatened by the idea that his students would be able to >compare him to other teachers. > > > >
