--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mrsatva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (...) the reason for this is that the predominant > > myth in the TMO is the importance of one's personal > > enlightenment (...) terms of social interaction. > > Does this meen, most tm peoples think that they can reach > enlightenment without taking care about others and without > taking responsiballity for theire aktion/nonaktion ?
I think it is safe to say that one could spend an entire lifetime in the TM movement and never hear the concept of one's everyday actions being important to the realization of enlightenment. The predominant myth has always been "Just meditate, and action will take care of itself." (paraphrasing, not quoting) > I think it is the other way round. Only this to thinks can > bring enlightenment. I'm not sure about "only," but I would agree that monitoring one's actions through mindfulness and putting some emphasis on improving them in terms of their effect on others seems pretty darned importance to the realization of enlightenment. <snip> > > "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. > > Is it possible to teach enlightenment by example ? I think that the *only* way one can really "teach" enlightenment is "by example." That is, by just living enlightenment and allowing the students to feel what that feels like. Talking about enlight- enment seems to accomplish nothing, but just being around it as it does its thing seems to have some value. In my opinion, of course. > > > Is that any different than the way a corporation functions? > > > > No. > > > > > 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. > > In my opinion, no. It should not function the way a corporation > intent on making a profit funktions but like a corporation intent > on selling social goods (social work...). Ah, but there is still that word "selling" in there. :-) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
