[FairfieldLife] Re: The agreement signed by the "recertified" TM Teachers
Recertified teachers are not trying to conform to this agreement. Its more of an idea or ideal at the time. Maharaja Adiraj Rajaram addresses some of the same questions in his most recent address to the Fairfeild community which is repeating currently on the Maharishi Channel and obviously is not interested in enforcing even the idea of full time teaching, he explicitly rejects that requirement. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" wrote: > > It's too vague to be legally binding. Any document including the terms > heaven on earth or satya yuga, etc, could never be proven in a court of law. > It's just a statement of intent, not legally binding. > > > - Original Message - > From: "TurquoiseB" > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 4:29 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The agreement signed by the "recertified" TM > Teachers > > > An anonymous contributor to the TM-Free blog > has submitted what appears to be the actual > legal agreement signed by the 300+ TM Teachers > as part of the first "recertification" course. > > This is IMO relevant to the latest DLF efforts > because it can be assumed that 1) only official > "recertified" TM Teachers will be allowed to > teach TM to students as a part of the DLF prog- > ram, and 2) what they *agreed to* to *become* > "recertified" teachers might just be relevant > to what it is that they will actually teach > or promote *in addition to* TM. > > Please bear in mind when reading the following > agreement that the marketing plan of the TMO > when it was signed was to sell TM in shopping > malls. Each of the "recertified" teachers sign- > ing this agreement then, and presumably signing > similar agreements in the time since, were agree- > ing to work full-time for the TM movement, in > exchange for $4000 a month for life. (This was > seemingly revised after the fact to become not > a fixed salary but a percentage of the income > generated by their efforts.) Thus *some* of the > particulars in the agreement below are no longer > in effect, the ones dealing with setting up > "enlightenment franchises" in shopping malls. > > HOWEVER, what I would like to see the TM supporters > on this forum "explain" is the agreement to "offer > the 55 Peace Palace services and types of products." > Having signed a legal agreement to do so, WHY in > your opinion should we expect these "recertified" > TM Teachers to limit themselves to teaching ONLY > TM to the students involved in the DLF program? > Having signed this agreement or one similar to > it, are they not legally and morally bound to > sell *other* TM products and programs as well? > > Will they attempt to segregate the "Quiet Time" > classes by gender, as they have agreed to do below, > to "maintain the two channels of activities-for > men and ladies?" Will they pressure the students > (as they agreed to do) to invest in "World Peace > Bonds, donations, and membership fees?" > > Which do you think will "win out" for these > teachers -- the charter of the David Lynch Foun- > dation to teach TM and only TM, or their previous > agreement with the TM organization to "offer the > 55 Peace Palace services and types of products" > and do the *other* things they agreed to do? > > I wait with 'bated breath to hear the TM supporters > give their opinion on these questions. > > ** > > RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNORS OF THE AGE OF > ENLIGHTENMENT ON THE AUSPICIOUS DAY OF > RĀM NAVAMI OF THE VEDIC CALENDAR > > I resolve today on the auspicious day of Rām Navami > of the Vedic Calendar, April 18, 2005, to be an > exponent of Total Knowledge of Natural Law for my > city and for the 4-5 surrounding towns of which I > will take care-to bring all the programs of Vedic > Education, Vedic Health, Vedic Architecture, Vedic > Organic Agriculture, Vedic Music, Vedic Economy, > and Vedic Administration, as brought to light by > His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, by establishing > Peace Palaces that will bring enlightenment to the > population under my care and create a powerful > influence of harmony and coherence and permanent > world peace with Invincibility for every nation. In > order to achieve this, I will dedicate myself full > time to the activity of Director of the Peace Palace, > and undertake to start my activity by: > > . Maintaining my long program morning and evening > > . Never engaging in anything that I know to be wrong > > . Renting space for a Peace Palace office in a mall > or similar facility > > . Arranging for secretarial services for each location > > . Advertising in local and regional newspapers, amongst > others > > . Offering the 55 Peace Palace services and types of > products in each Peace Palace > > . Opening a local bank account > > . Maintaining the two channels of activities-for men > and ladies > > . Finding 4-5 assistants initially, and soon after, > 4-5 assistants for each location under my care > > . Engaging 4 massage therap
[FairfieldLife] Re: The agreement signed by the "recertified" TM Teachers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" wrote: > While this is true, and while like other TM > "contracts" the signee probably did not get > his or her own copy (which renders it void > legally), there is the argument put forth > by TM defenders here when some TM Teacher > who in the past signed a similarly non-legal > contract "violated his vow" by either teach- > ing TM outside of the TMO, telling what the > mantras were, etc. > > In those cases, if I remember correctly, the > TM apologists tried to make a case for "Well, > it may not be legally binding, but it is > *morally* binding." They tried to imply that > if the TM Teacher they were trying to demonize > did *NOT* "honor his word" that he or she was > a slime whose word could not be trusted. And/or > his/her claim to be "teaching TM the way he was > taught by Maharishi, only outside the TMO" could > not and should not be believed. Actually, the TMers Barry is trying to demonize did not say "could not and should not be believed," they said the prospective student had *no way of knowing* whether these teachers were teaching TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (And I don't believe anybody ever described such teachers as "slime.") > Given the fact that they were fanatical enough to > pay for TTC *twice* just because Maharishi told them > to, and given the fact that they signed this agree- > ment, which do you think they're going to honor -- > the previous agreement (in which they promised to > sell everything TM), or the DLF agreement (in which > they will probably have to agree to teach only TM). Are all the DLF teachers also currently directors of Peace Palaces? And is the DLF program considered part of the Peace Palace program? Because it looks to me as though the agreement you reproduce has to do with the duties of teachers as full-time directors of Peace Palaces and the activities that take place therein. It further seems to me that if this contract *is* assumed to determine what's required of them as DLF teachers, all they really need to do to fulfill the condition of "offering the 55 Peace Palace services and types of products in each Peace Palace" is to tell the students at some point that the TMO offers lots of other services and products, and give them a URL and/or the address of their local Peace Palace if they want to know more. The agreement does *not* say that they're required to "pressure" people to take advantage of these services or invest in these products, just to *offer* them. If a DLF agreement (assuming there is one; that's just an assumption at this point) prohibits the teacher from even mentioning any other TMO programs, and the Peace Palace agreement is also assumed to be binding in the DLF context, then those teachers do have a bit of a problem (unless the DLF agreement explicitly says those provisions of the Peace Palace agreement are not construed to apply to the DLF project). The gender separation requirement doesn't seem like it would apply toany activity that isn't conducted in a Peace Palace, so I don't think we have to worry about that. Got any more angels for this pinhead, Barry? The dance floor is getting kinda crowded.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The agreement signed by the "recertified" TM Teachers
There are no recerts here on FFLife to say anything. - Original Message - From: "TurquoiseB" To: Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The agreement signed by the "recertified" TM Teachers > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" wrote: >> >> It's too vague to be legally binding. Any document including >> the terms heaven on earth or satya yuga, etc, could never be >> proven in a court of law. > > Not to mention "saying bye-bye to Kali Yuga." :-) > >> It's just a statement of intent, not legally binding. > > While this is true, and while like other TM > "contracts" the signee probably did not get > his or her own copy (which renders it void > legally), there is the argument put forth > by TM defenders here when some TM Teacher > who in the past signed a similarly non-legal > contract "violated his vow" by either teach- > ing TM outside of the TMO, telling what the > mantras were, etc. > > In those cases, if I remember correctly, the > TM apologists tried to make a case for "Well, > it may not be legally binding, but it is > *morally* binding." They tried to imply that > if the TM Teacher they were trying to demonize > did *NOT* "honor his word" that he or she was > a slime whose word could not be trusted. And/or > his/her claim to be "teaching TM the way he was > taught by Maharishi, only outside the TMO" could > not and should not be believed. > > If those SAME TM apologists now turn around and > say that because *this* agreement is probably > non-binding these "recertified" TM Teachers > should feel NO NEED to honor it, that'll be > a tad hypocritical, yes? > > My contention is that anyone stupid enough to > pay *twice* to become a TM Teacher is going to > feel not only obligated to honor this agreement, > legal or not, they're going to fear going to Hell > if they *don't* honor it. That's the way someone > that fanatical would think. > > My point -- and the question that the TM apologists > here will probably be too afraid to deal with -- is > that if someone like that says to a prospective > DLF target school, "I will teach nothing but vanilla > TM...I promise," SHOULD THEY BE BELIEVED? > > Given the fact that they were fanatical enough to > pay for TTC *twice* just because Maharishi told them > to, and given the fact that they signed this agree- > ment, which do you think they're going to honor -- > the previous agreement (in which they promised to > sell everything TM), or the DLF agreement (in which > they will probably have to agree to teach only TM). > > My money is on them feeling a sense of moral honor > (if not legal obligation) to honor the contract with > (in their view) "God and Guru Dev," rather than the > legal one. > > But let's hear what the True Believers here have to > say, if they *have* anything to say, that is... :-) > > >> - Original Message - >> From: "TurquoiseB" >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 4:29 AM >> Subject: [FairfieldLife] The agreement signed by the "recertified" TM >> Teachers >> >> >> An anonymous contributor to the TM-Free blog >> has submitted what appears to be the actual >> legal agreement signed by the 300+ TM Teachers >> as part of the first "recertification" course. >> >> This is IMO relevant to the latest DLF efforts >> because it can be assumed that 1) only official >> "recertified" TM Teachers will be allowed to >> teach TM to students as a part of the DLF prog- >> ram, and 2) what they *agreed to* to *become* >> "recertified" teachers might just be relevant >> to what it is that they will actually teach >> or promote *in addition to* TM. >> >> Please bear in mind when reading the following >> agreement that the marketing plan of the TMO >> when it was signed was to sell TM in shopping >> malls. Each of the "recertified" teachers sign- >> ing this agreement then, and presumably signing >> similar agreements in the time since, were agree- >> ing to work full-time for the TM movement, in >> exchange for $4000 a month for life. (This was >> seemingly revised after the fact to become not >> a fixed salary but a percentage of the income >> generated by their efforts.) Thus *some* of the >> particulars in the agreement below are no longer >> in effect, the ones dealing with setting up >> "enlightenment franchises" in shopping malls. >>
[FairfieldLife] Re: The agreement signed by the "recertified" TM Teachers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" wrote: > > It's too vague to be legally binding. Any document including > the terms heaven on earth or satya yuga, etc, could never be > proven in a court of law. Not to mention "saying bye-bye to Kali Yuga." :-) > It's just a statement of intent, not legally binding. While this is true, and while like other TM "contracts" the signee probably did not get his or her own copy (which renders it void legally), there is the argument put forth by TM defenders here when some TM Teacher who in the past signed a similarly non-legal contract "violated his vow" by either teach- ing TM outside of the TMO, telling what the mantras were, etc. In those cases, if I remember correctly, the TM apologists tried to make a case for "Well, it may not be legally binding, but it is *morally* binding." They tried to imply that if the TM Teacher they were trying to demonize did *NOT* "honor his word" that he or she was a slime whose word could not be trusted. And/or his/her claim to be "teaching TM the way he was taught by Maharishi, only outside the TMO" could not and should not be believed. If those SAME TM apologists now turn around and say that because *this* agreement is probably non-binding these "recertified" TM Teachers should feel NO NEED to honor it, that'll be a tad hypocritical, yes? My contention is that anyone stupid enough to pay *twice* to become a TM Teacher is going to feel not only obligated to honor this agreement, legal or not, they're going to fear going to Hell if they *don't* honor it. That's the way someone that fanatical would think. My point -- and the question that the TM apologists here will probably be too afraid to deal with -- is that if someone like that says to a prospective DLF target school, "I will teach nothing but vanilla TM...I promise," SHOULD THEY BE BELIEVED? Given the fact that they were fanatical enough to pay for TTC *twice* just because Maharishi told them to, and given the fact that they signed this agree- ment, which do you think they're going to honor -- the previous agreement (in which they promised to sell everything TM), or the DLF agreement (in which they will probably have to agree to teach only TM). My money is on them feeling a sense of moral honor (if not legal obligation) to honor the contract with (in their view) "God and Guru Dev," rather than the legal one. But let's hear what the True Believers here have to say, if they *have* anything to say, that is... :-) > - Original Message - > From: "TurquoiseB" > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 4:29 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The agreement signed by the "recertified" TM > Teachers > > > An anonymous contributor to the TM-Free blog > has submitted what appears to be the actual > legal agreement signed by the 300+ TM Teachers > as part of the first "recertification" course. > > This is IMO relevant to the latest DLF efforts > because it can be assumed that 1) only official > "recertified" TM Teachers will be allowed to > teach TM to students as a part of the DLF prog- > ram, and 2) what they *agreed to* to *become* > "recertified" teachers might just be relevant > to what it is that they will actually teach > or promote *in addition to* TM. > > Please bear in mind when reading the following > agreement that the marketing plan of the TMO > when it was signed was to sell TM in shopping > malls. Each of the "recertified" teachers sign- > ing this agreement then, and presumably signing > similar agreements in the time since, were agree- > ing to work full-time for the TM movement, in > exchange for $4000 a month for life. (This was > seemingly revised after the fact to become not > a fixed salary but a percentage of the income > generated by their efforts.) Thus *some* of the > particulars in the agreement below are no longer > in effect, the ones dealing with setting up > "enlightenment franchises" in shopping malls. > > HOWEVER, what I would like to see the TM supporters > on this forum "explain" is the agreement to "offer > the 55 Peace Palace services and types of products." > Having signed a legal agreement to do so, WHY in > your opinion should we expect these "recertified" > TM Teachers to limit themselves to teaching ONLY > TM to the students involved in the DLF program? > Having signed this agreement or one similar to > it, are they not legally and morally bound to > sell *other* TM products and programs as well? > > Will they attempt to segregate the "Quiet Time" > classes by gender, as they have agreed to do below, > to "maintain the two channels of activities-for > men and ladies?" Will they pressure the students > (as they agreed to do) to invest in "World Peace > Bonds, donations, and membership fees?" > > Which do you think will "win out" for these > teachers -- the charter of the David Lynch Foun- > dation to teach TM and only TM, or their previous > agreement with the TM organization to "offer the > 55 Peace Palace services and
