--- In [email protected], "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Rick Archer > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > "By example" is ALWAYS what wins. Maharishi could talk > > > > and talk and talk forever ...--->> and in fact has almost > > > > no sense of loyalty to those who have served him for > > > > years as TM teachers. <<<----- > > > > > > The loyalty stuff has always bothered me. It's nagged at me for a > > long > > > time. When I saw how Maharishi treated those closest to him, > > (Charlie, > > > Jerry, etc...) I knew something was 'rotten in Denmark'. Its a big > > > cognitive disonance for a 'spiritual movement'. > > > > What's a bit odd about the current discussion of the > > TMO's perceived lack of spirituality is how judgmental > > it is. Aren't being spiritual and being judgmental > > mutually contradictory? > > > > There is a big difference between 'judgemental' and the ability to > discriminate. I've always thought that it is an important ethical and > spiritual principle not to use someone's ignorance against them. (You > can see a lot of that in the current TMO.) A corrallary of love thy > neighbor as thyself, I guess. The new age axiom about being > non-judgemental kill's the basic ability of the mind to make > evolutionary decisions. That's what it's there for...
I don't think it's just a "new age" axiom. I think it's pretty traditional observation where enlightenment is concerned. In any case, of course you have to discriminate and make evolutionary decisions; that isn't what I mean by "judgmentalism." You can say, e.g., I choose to do THIS rather than THAT, without saying, They're selfish and unspiritual because they choose to do THAT rather than THIS (implied: And my choice shows I'm selfless and spiritually superior). And you can certainly also attempt to persuade them to stop doing THAT and start doing THIS without being judgmental. ------------------------ 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/
