--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer 
> on 1/1/06 9:35 AM, mrsatva at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Because it got too weird for people, or what ?
> > 
> > Probebly all the reasons why people are leaving the TMO...
> > 
> > I have been thinking about it for quit some time now and I thing 
> > the main reasons are to many scratches in the heart.
> > One of the biggest TMO problems: the way people treat eatch 
> > other.

Yup. It's a movement full of people who care more
about talking the talk than they do walking the 
walk. In fact, there is no perceived *value* in
walking the walk, whereas there is for talking
the talk. Good talkers get promoted into the
movement hierarchy, whereas those who actually
live quietly according to generally-accepted 
spiritual precepts get ignored or are cast off.

> I wonder how the TMO compares with other spiritual movements 
> in terms of this problem. 

I can't speak for all other spiritual movements,
but I'd say that it's in the same ballpark as 
other spiritual movements whose primary myth is
centered around the importance of one's own 
personal enlightenment. (As opposed to movements
in which the highest ideal is service to others
or working for the enlightenment of all beings.)

That's where the issue lies, in my opinion. When
you create a group myth that says that one's 
personal enlightenment is the most important 
thing in life, then suddenly *many* other things
become considered secondary, or not terribly
important. Some of those "secondary" other things
can include treating people with a basic sense of
civility and respect, taking personal responsibility 
for one's actions, living up to responsibilities 
that have been assigned to you, etc.  

We've all been around the TM block a few times. 
How many times have you seen some TM teacher/
governor/purusha/MD/whatever completely crap out
on their responsibilities (financial, personal, 
family or otherwise) and just blow town to go to 
the Next Next Big Thing Course, leaving others 
holding the bag?  It's almost *accepted* behavior. 
And IMO the reason for this is that the predominant 
myth in the TMO is the importance of one's personal 
enlightenment. You would not see such behavior in, 
say, Buddhist groups, in which the primary myth 
is service to others.

Add to this the tendency in the TMO to stigmatize
anyone who deviates in any way from the established
dogma, and you've got a real mess on your hands in
terms of social interaction.

> There are plenty of sweet people in the movement, and plenty
> of jerks who hopefully are getting sweeter, but it's been a 
> long haul. If the TMO is worse than average, why is that? 

I don't think the TMO is worse than the average.
It's about average, in almost every way imaginable.

> Maharishi has given plenty of lip service to "speak 
> the sweet truth" and "the world is my family," but
> does he treat the people around him that way 

No way.

> ...and does he inspire his followers to do the same? 

No way.

> If so, is his inspiration explicit or by example?

"By example" is ALWAYS what wins. Maharishi could talk
and talk and talk forever about how strongly he feels
about humanity as a whole. But then he turns around
and ACTS in a manner that indicates he couldn't care
less about humanity as a whole, and in fact has almost
no sense of loyalty to those who have served him for
years as TM teachers. Given the dichotomy between what
is said and what is done, the "lesson" being picked
up by most students as "this is the way an enlightened
being acts" is what is DONE, not what is said.

> Or, on the other hand, are people treated like expendable 
> commodities, to be discarded if they become ill, run out 
> of money, become too independent in their thinking, get 
> eclipsed by someone with skills exceeding theirs, etc?

Well, duh. That, in a nutshell, is the forty-year
history of the TMO.

> Is that any different than the way a corporation functions? 


> Should it be?

In my opinion, yes. Unless you believe that organizations
that profess to teach a pathway to enlightenment should
be nothing more than big corporations, intent on making
a profit. 

> For some reason, I felt like writing this as a series 
> of questions. I think each question could be answered with 
> examples both pro and con, so we would have to look at what 
> the predominant tendency has been. 

The question format seemed right to me. And you're right
in that for every generalization one can find a rare
exception (some rare TMer who actually acts in a humane
manner). But it's the predominant tendency that defines
the movement, and I think there is no question about
what that tendency has been, and continues to be.  The
people who pay for the TM movement are considered to be,
and have *always* been considered by Maharishi and the
TMO administration to be as disposable as Kleenex, and 
with as much inherent worth as a used Kleenex.

> I don't feel like spouting glib answers at the moment. 
> I guess everyone draws their own conclusions, based on 
> their experience, and acts accordingly. As you say, in
> Germany, most have left.

Unless you're really into S&M, being on the receiving 
end of the TM movement's horse copulation ceremony 
gets a little old after a while.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to