[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: off_world_beings wrote: Your Dalai Lama trip is just silly. The Dalai Lama is not trying to create a sea-change in the subtle structure of world consciousness. He is out to meet people and smile a lot and wave the peace sign. Big deal. Try meeting the Pope, see how far you get. In your zeal to discredit Barry, you've proven his point. Congratualations. You fell right into his dialectic trap. Color me amazed, and with my jaw fully dropped. It's truly a banner day on Fairfield Life when the only person to get the point is Willytex.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've noticed the accusations made by Barry about anyone challenging him fall into three distinct categories; the challenger is 1)afraid, 2)uptight, and/or 4)angry. On the other hand, Barry can count. Apparently, that is one of the skills that falls away along with other attachments when one becomes Self Realized. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: I've noticed the accusations made by Barry about anyone challenging him fall into three distinct categories; the challenger is 1)afraid, 2)uptight, and/or 4)angry. On the other hand, Barry can count. Apparently, that is one of the skills that falls away along with other attachments when one becomes Self Realized. :-) He learned in the Saint Antioch School of Higher Mathematics... 1... 2... 4... 3, sir, 3!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: I've noticed the accusations made by Barry about anyone challenging him fall into three distinct categories; the challenger is 1)afraid, 2)uptight, and/or 4)angry. On the other hand, Barry can count. Apparently, that is one of the skills that falls away along with other attachments when one becomes Self Realized. :-) He learned in the Saint Antioch School of Higher Mathematics... 1... 2... 4... 3, sir, 3! For those who don't get the joke: Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy. And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit- bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it. -- from Monty Python and the Holy Grail And it was 1..., 2... 5... anyway... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjeJi07O7uQ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: off_world_beings wrote: Your Dalai Lama trip is just silly. The Dalai Lama is not trying to create a sea-change in the subtle structure of world consciousness. He is out to meet people and smile a lot and wave the peace sign. Big deal. Try meeting the Pope, see how far you get. In your zeal to discredit Barry, you've proven his point. Congratualations. You fell right into his dialectic trap. Yawn, I don't keep track of every muse of the twisted meanderings of a mega-poster, I just rattle in now and again with something rational. Not something you seem to have a flare for if you think I fell into his so called trap...OOOooo. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-) Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. If a spiritual teacher becomes inaccessible, it's because he wants it that way, not because of the size of the organization. Bull. I second that emotion. OffWorld I find this utterly fascinating. What do you think it is that these two TMers are reacting to here, and are so uptight about? What do you think it is that makes Barry assume that anyone who challenges him is doing so because what he's said makes them uptight? snip I might comment further that different strokes for different folks works for students, as well. As we all know, there are students of Maharishi's who have spent well over 30 years studying with him who have not only not met him, they've managed to not even be in the same lecture hall with him, Fascinating locution, studying with him. Who do you know, Barry, who has been studying with MMY for 30 years without ever seeing him in person? even if they would have been sharing that intimate gathering with 2000 other students in the lecture hall. Something's always come up such that they couldn't make the dozens of courses during which they would have had the opportunity to see him. Which students of Maharishi would these be, Barry? Give us an example. Anyone from this forum? I'm racking my brains to recall anyone here explaining how something has always come up to prevent their seeing MMY in person. Why? Different strokes for different folks. Some seekers want a kind of distant relationship with their spiritual teacher, one that (in my opinion) allows them to *keep* him at a distance, and thus to never encounter anything that might be jarring to their selves' ideas about him or to those selves themselves. Or, their ideas about him just aren't that crucial to their path. They don't feel the need to have a relationship with the teacher, distant or otherwise. Who the teacher is as a person is of no importance; what counts is the teaching and how it enriches their lives.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-) Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. If a spiritual teacher becomes inaccessible, it's because he wants it that way, not because of the size of the organization. Bull. I second that emotion. OffWorld I find this utterly fascinating. What do you think it is that these two TMers are reacting to here, and are so uptight about? From my side I was just reporting what went down -- my friends, who *are* involved with the DL and with Tibetan Buddhism, invited me to go with them to see him in Paris. After one of the public talks, I went with them backstage and waited with them while they waited to talk with the Dalai Lama. When it was their time to meet with him, I walked up, too, and gave him a kata and thanked him for a particular book of his (and a particular part of that book) that I'd enjoyed and he asked which part and I told him and he smiled. That was it. The thing is, if it were Maharishi we were talking about, I wouldn't have been able to have that much time with him unless I had a check for several million bucks in my hand. And I think that there is a possibility that what Sparaig and Off are reacting to is that they've never even been *that* close to the spiritual teacher they've worked with for...what is it now, 30 years? Guys, that's not my fault. It's the teacher's fault. He doesn't WANT to meet you. Never has, never will. Maharishi likes seclusion because he doesn't like people very much. The Dalai Lama's more of a people person. Different strokes for different folks, that's all. I might comment further that different strokes for different folks works for students, as well. As we all know, there are students of Maharishi's who have spent well over 30 years studying with him who have not only not met him, they've managed to not even be in the same lecture hall with him, even if they would have been sharing that intimate gathering with 2000 other students in the lecture hall. Something's always come up such that they couldn't make the dozens of courses during which they would have had the opportunity to see him. Why? Different strokes for different folks. Some seekers want a kind of distant relationship with their spiritual teacher, one that (in my opinion) allows them to *keep* him at a distance, and thus to never encounter anything that might be jarring to their selves' ideas about him or to those selves themselves. Other seekers want a more personal relationship, and for those types of seekers, there are more personal teachers out there in the world, teachers who are more than willing to meet the seekers and work with them on a more personal level. No harm, no foul, either way. Different strokes for different folks, be they teacher or student. But to suggest that once a teacher's organization gets to a certain size they *can* no longer interface directly with their students is silly and simply not true. It all depends on the teacher, and on the student. Perhaps some Byron Katie inquiry around this would help you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-) Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. If a spiritual teacher becomes inaccessible, it's because he wants it that way, not because of the size of the organization. Bull. I second that emotion. OffWorld I find this utterly fascinating. What do you think it is that these two TMers are reacting to here, and are so uptight about? From my side I was just reporting what went down -- my friends, who *are* involved with the DL and with Tibetan Buddhism, invited me to go with them to see him in Paris. After one of the public talks, I went with them backstage and waited with them while they waited to talk with the Dalai Lama. When it was their time to meet with him, I walked up, too, and gave him a kata and thanked him for a particular book of his (and a particular part of that book) that I'd enjoyed and he asked which part and I told him and he smiled. That was it. The thing is, if it were Maharishi we were talking about, I wouldn't have been able to have that much time with him unless I had a check for several million bucks in my hand. And I think that there is a possibility that what Sparaig and Off are reacting to is that they've never even been *that* close to the spiritual teacher they've worked with for...what is it now, 30 years? Guys, that's not my fault. It's the teacher's fault. He doesn't WANT to meet you. So? What exactly is your problem with that? I have absolutley no problem with it. You sound very needy, and meeting with the Dalai Lama appears to have been a complete waste of time in your case. OffWorld Never has, never will. Maharishi likes seclusion because he doesn't like people very much. The Dalai Lama's more of a people person. Different strokes for different folks, that's all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
off_world_beings wrote: Your Dalai Lama trip is just silly. The Dalai Lama is not trying to create a sea-change in the subtle structure of world consciousness. He is out to meet people and smile a lot and wave the peace sign. Big deal. Try meeting the Pope, see how far you get. In your zeal to discredit Barry, you've proven his point. Congratualations. You fell right into his dialectic trap.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
jstein wrote: Well, he's feeling very besieged right now, which freaks him out, so he has to cut his enemies down to size in his own mind. He does that by imagining that they're uptight because whatever he said was so threatening to them, rather than acknowledging to himself that they're laughing at him because he's such a fool, which would be unendurable. He makes himself feel more powerful that way. Don't feed it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of off_world_beings Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 3:08 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?) People here have a total misunderstanding of what Maharishi is saying. He is (and always has said) that Brahman is the Charioteer, every person is Royalty, every person is divine being, every person is the Cosmic Administrator, every person in the Ruler of the Universe, every person is a Maharishi. There are no kings and subjects. He says that, but he doesn't run the movement that way. The movement is very hierarchical. There is a vast difference between the ways people at opposite ends of the social scale are treated. The wind blows and the leaves go where it wills. Deal with it. OffWorld .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with OffWorld. Democracy gives the people the chance to get rid of worthless rulers without a civil war. It provides this crucial safety net as a MINIMUM feature. It doesn't stop an enlightened Movement that can provide MAXIMUM benefits to society to NATURALLY win power in order to deliver such benefits. But it stops Movements PRETENDING to do so from overstaying their welcome. Therefore it makes NO SENSE to oppose democracy. It is easier to hide behind a mystique of superiority, as royalty and the nobility did not that long ago, than to face an electorate that can register satisfaction or disatisfaction. This way the voice of the people is HEARD at least whereas typically in undemocratic systems voicing opinions against the ruling elite, even if justified, is dangerous and suppressed, usually brutally so. Apart from deriding democracy I've heard MMY laugh at the concept of human rights.. With such a role model, completely sold on the up- down flow of knowledge and rights, is it a wonder that most of us are resistant to this MISGUIDED trend in the Movement? Talking of women, for instance, look how all the leaders of the Movement now are MEN - women are just mothers now. They are all dressed up as if they are Indians - what happened to the idea of cultural integrity? Why can't Westerners be THEMSELVES, with their own values etc? The idealization of monarchy assumes truly enlightened and benign rulers - an utopian dream; whereas democracy assumes there will be conflict of interests and unenlightened tendencies around (which can be CLEVERLY camouflaged) hence posits a SAFETY mechanism to MINIMIZE such unfortunate but frequent possibilities, as evidenced by the WHOLE of recorded history so far.. snip Totally agree with you. Very well expressed, from the heart, and not from some bullshit brain-washing. Well said. I am with you on this, and will never let anyone kill democracy, unless they are bliss-bomb dropping aliens or something. Not gonna happen in my life-time. Time for the Ru's to stand up and state what they believe about democracy. Americans (and Brits) are brain-washed and cynical about democracy, but if it REALY WAS TAKEN AWAY from them, then they would cry like babies for the days we are in now. Wake-up people...and speak for yourselfnot your creed. OffWorld .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
---re: Jim says then go hang out with the Dalai Lama. Thanks, but I'm no longer in need of physical Gurus. I will now use this opportunity (separate topic), to quote the first 3 verses on Hsuan Hsua's commentary on the Great Compassion Mantra of Quan Yin: 1. With a kind, compassionate regard, a regard full of joy and giving, He rescues all beings, transforming great-thousand world systems. Gathering in those with and without prior affinities, He helps them to end suffering, find joy, and return to the source. 2. Our body, mouth and mind form a wheel that is this mighty dharani. As the many-petaled lotus blossom just begins to open, White, green, red, and purple light shines on us all. Disciples of the Buddha have affinities to join the sages? Celebrations. 3. Holding a bowl, Contemplating Sounds saves us mortals; Prescribing medicine to cure our ills, he nurtures the three thousand worlds. Bowing in homage, we earnestly entreat him to answer our calls. In various ways he fulfills all our heart's desires. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: ---Virtually all Gurus grovel for money. However, The Dalai Lama may not secretly store it away like some others. Also, the Dalai Lama makes himself rather accessible - mingling with scientists, reporters; and at least fielding questions from various outsiders. reporters. He appeared on CNN appealing for people to be compassionate after Katrina. MMY OTOH only surrounds himself with sycophants. what's the problem? go follow the Dalai Lama around then.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-) Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. If a spiritual teacher becomes inaccessible, it's because he wants it that way, not because of the size of the organization. Bull. I second that emotion. OffWorld I find this utterly fascinating. What do you think it is that these two TMers are reacting to here, and are so uptight about? From my side I was just reporting what went down -- my friends, who *are* involved with the DL and with Tibetan Buddhism, invited me to go with them to see him in Paris. After one of the public talks, I went with them backstage and waited with them while they waited to talk with the Dalai Lama. When it was their time to meet with him, I walked up, too, and gave him a kata and thanked him for a particular book of his (and a particular part of that book) that I'd enjoyed and he asked which part and I told him and he smiled. That was it. The thing is, if it were Maharishi we were talking about, I wouldn't have been able to have that much time with him unless I had a check for several million bucks in my hand. And I think that there is a possibility that what Sparaig and Off are reacting to is that they've never even been *that* close to the spiritual teacher they've worked with for...what is it now, 30 years? Guys, that's not my fault. It's the teacher's fault. He doesn't WANT to meet you. Never has, never will. Maharishi likes seclusion because he doesn't like people very much. The Dalai Lama's more of a people person. Different strokes for different folks, that's all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-) Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. If a spiritual teacher becomes inaccessible, it's because he wants it that way, not because of the size of the organization. Bull. I second that emotion. OffWorld I find this utterly fascinating. What do you think it is that these two TMers are reacting to here, and are so uptight about? From my side I was just reporting what went down -- my friends, who *are* involved with the DL and with Tibetan Buddhism, invited me to go with them to see him in Paris. After one of the public talks, I went with them backstage and waited with them while they waited to talk with the Dalai Lama. When it was their time to meet with him, I walked up, too, and gave him a kata and thanked him for a particular book of his (and a particular part of that book) that I'd enjoyed and he asked which part and I told him and he smiled. That was it. The thing is, if it were Maharishi we were talking about, I wouldn't have been able to have that much time with him unless I had a check for several million bucks in my hand. And I think that there is a possibility that what Sparaig and Off are reacting to is that they've never even been *that* close to the spiritual teacher they've worked with for...what is it now, 30 years? Guys, that's not my fault. It's the teacher's fault. He doesn't WANT to meet you. Never has, never will. Maharishi likes seclusion because he doesn't like people very much. The Dalai Lama's more of a people person. Different strokes for different folks, that's all. I might comment further that different strokes for different folks works for students, as well. As we all know, there are students of Maharishi's who have spent well over 30 years studying with him who have not only not met him, they've managed to not even be in the same lecture hall with him, even if they would have been sharing that intimate gathering with 2000 other students in the lecture hall. Something's always come up such that they couldn't make the dozens of courses during which they would have had the opportunity to see him. Why? Different strokes for different folks. Some seekers want a kind of distant relationship with their spiritual teacher, one that (in my opinion) allows them to *keep* him at a distance, and thus to never encounter anything that might be jarring to their selves' ideas about him or to those selves themselves. Other seekers want a more personal relationship, and for those types of seekers, there are more personal teachers out there in the world, teachers who are more than willing to meet the seekers and work with them on a more personal level. No harm, no foul, either way. Different strokes for different folks, be they teacher or student. But to suggest that once a teacher's organization gets to a certain size they *can* no longer interface directly with their students is silly and simply not true. It all depends on the teacher, and on the student.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of off_world_beings Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 3:08 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?) People here have a total misunderstanding of what Maharishi is saying. He is (and always has said) that Brahman is the Charioteer, every person is Royalty, every person is divine being, every person is the Cosmic Administrator, every person in the Ruler of the Universe, every person is a Maharishi. There are no kings and subjects. He says that, but he doesn't run the movement that way. The movement is very hierarchical. There is a vast difference between the ways people at opposite ends of the social scale are treated. Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-) Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. If a spiritual teacher becomes inaccessible, it's because he wants it that way, not because of the size of the organization.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:17 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of off_world_beings Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 3:08 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?) People here have a total misunderstanding of what Maharishi is saying. He is (and always has said) that Brahman is the Charioteer, every person is Royalty, every person is divine being, every person is the Cosmic Administrator, every person in the Ruler of the Universe, every person is a Maharishi. There are no kings and subjects. He says that, but he doesn't run the movement that way. The movement is very hierarchical. There is a vast difference between the ways people at opposite ends of the social scale are treated. Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. I'm not talking about getting to see him. I doubt very much that the Dali Lama lavishes jewels and expensive clothes and cushy digs on the important people while treating the little people as expendable commodities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not talking about getting to see him. I doubt very much that the Dalai Lama lavishes jewels and expensive clothes and cushy digs on the important people while treating the little people as expendable commodities. From what I have been given to understand from friends who have worked with him closely for decades, it is the exact opposite. The Dalai Lama hates the publicity shots with the rich and famous, and tends to come alive and interact joyously with everyday journeyman monks who do the grunt work of spreading Tibetan Buddhism. To put this in perspective, that would be like Maharishi giving a special audience to the guy who had worked his butt off in the field to spread TM and, as a result, had initiated over 1000 people within a year, while ignoring the person who was standing there with a check for Big Bucks in his hand. I mention this not as metaphor but as something I actually saw happen. Only in reverse. Maharishi blew off the initiator who had taught (at the time) the most people in TM movement history within one year, and spent his entire time hobnobbing with a German who had become a TM teacher years before, had never taught TM to anyone in his life, but who had a check for measly sum (at that time) of 100K in his hand. And this was back in the Seventies, before the lust for money became *really* out of hand. I repost here something I posted on TM-Free this morning, as a comment to a thread that dealt with the coronation of the latest Raj Rajeshwari. Betty writes (in a comment to Gina's post): I was never aware of the shame of not being wealthy until I went on TTC. An interesting and accurate perception, Betty. I can only say that it wasn't always that way. On my TTC back in 1972, the vast majority of us were poor folk, having had to scrape up the money to attend TTC however we could, and having done so because we had a desire to help other poor folk like ourselves to learn to meditate. But back then learning to meditate the TM way cost $35 to $75. That was before Maharishi started equating being rich with being highly evolved, and equating giving as much of those riches to him as possible with being even more highly evolved. One of the saddest things you can see in any spiritual tradition is this transition. In the beginning, putting one's life on the line to help others is viewed as good karma, and as an indication of one's spiritual worth. But in the last days of any dying spiritual organization, only cutting a check is seen as indicative of one's spiritual worth. The costumes and the pomp and circumstance of coronations such as this one are just the surface symptoms of a greater dis-ease. They are like the carcinomas that appear on the skin of a patient who is already close to death.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-) Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. Same here. He was very accessible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I'm not talking about getting to see him. I doubt very much that the Dalai Lama lavishes jewels and expensive clothes and cushy digs on the important people while treating the little people as expendable commodities. From what I have been given to understand from friends who have worked with him closely for decades, it is the exact opposite. The Dalai Lama hates the publicity shots with the rich and famous, and tends to come alive and interact joyously with everyday journeyman monks who do the grunt work of spreading Tibetan Buddhism. To put this in perspective, that would be like Maharishi giving a special audience to the guy who had worked his butt off in the field to spread TM and, as a result, had initiated over 1000 people within a year, while ignoring the person who was standing there with a check for Big Bucks in his hand. I mention this not as metaphor but as something I actually saw happen. Only in reverse. Maharishi blew off the initiator who had taught (at the time) the most people in TM movement history within one year, and spent his entire time hobnobbing with a German who had become a TM teacher years before, had never taught TM to anyone in his life, but who had a check for measly sum (at that time) of 100K in his hand. And this was back in the Seventies, before the lust for money became *really* out of hand. I repost here something I posted on TM-Free this morning, as a comment to a thread that dealt with the coronation of the latest Raj Rajeshwari. Betty writes (in a comment to Gina's post): I was never aware of the shame of not being wealthy until I went on TTC. An interesting and accurate perception, Betty. I can only say that it wasn't always that way. On my TTC back in 1972, the vast majority of us were poor folk, having had to scrape up the money to attend TTC however we could, and having done so because we had a desire to help other poor folk like ourselves to learn to meditate. But back then learning to meditate the TM way cost $35 to $75. That was before Maharishi started equating being rich with being highly evolved, and equating giving as much of those riches to him as possible with being even more highly evolved. One of the saddest things you can see in any spiritual tradition is this transition. In the beginning, putting one's life on the line to help others is viewed as good karma, and as an indication of one's spiritual worth. But in the last days of any dying spiritual organization, only cutting a check is seen as indicative of one's spiritual worth. The costumes and the pomp and circumstance of coronations such as this one are just the surface symptoms of a greater dis-ease. They are like the carcinomas that appear on the skin of a patient who is already close to death. All of this reads a lot better without the frequent conclusions sprinkled throughout. Though it is tempting for the mind to safely jump to conclusions, it is far more interesting not to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
I agree with OffWorld. Democracy gives the people the chance to get rid of worthless rulers without a civil war. It provides this crucial safety net as a MINIMUM feature. It doesn't stop an enlightened Movement that can provide MAXIMUM benefits to society to NATURALLY win power in order to deliver such benefits. But it stops Movements PRETENDING to do so from overstaying their welcome. Therefore it makes NO SENSE to oppose democracy. It is easier to hide behind a mystique of superiority, as royalty and the nobility did not that long ago, than to face an electorate that can register satisfaction or disatisfaction. This way the voice of the people is HEARD at least whereas typically in undemocratic systems voicing opinions against the ruling elite, even if justified, is dangerous and suppressed, usually brutally so. Apart from deriding democracy I've heard MMY laugh at the concept of human rights.. With such a role model, completely sold on the up-down flow of knowledge and rights, is it a wonder that most of us are resistant to this MISGUIDED trend in the Movement? Talking of women, for instance, look how all the leaders of the Movement now are MEN - women are just mothers now. They are all dressed up as if they are Indians - what happened to the idea of cultural integrity? Why can't Westerners be THEMSELVES, with their own values etc? The idealization of monarchy assumes truly enlightened and benign rulers - an utopian dream; whereas democracy assumes there will be conflict of interests and unenlightened tendencies around (which can be CLEVERLY camouflaged) hence posits a SAFETY mechanism to MINIMIZE such unfortunate but frequent possibilities, as evidenced by the WHOLE of recorded history so far.. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, peterklutz peterklutz@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Maharishi seems to denounce democracy. ( Damn Democracy ) I will never accept this, until I see a bunch of people literally flying through the air spreading flowers of bliss. Until then, I will never give up on democracy (and that is nothing to do with Bush's ignorant redneck understanding of the issuejust to be clear for you Busheep warmonger retards) Where do you stand? Make your case. And...please...don't give us some BS about enlightened Kings. Until they are floating through the air dropping gold and bliss honey on everyone, they are just dead men walking. Where do you stand on democracy? Let us know Demo + cracy is a wonderful concept: people going about their own lives with no interference, or in a more less benign way: the oppression of the minority of the majority. In practice, unfortunately, democracy is neither of this - it's a system of government that has proven itself to be highly susceptible to perversion through sow-dissension-and-divide-and-rule attacks by small secret lodges of men seeking power. This weakness has been exploited on all scales of human organization: from international relations, to inside countries - to this list. That is dangerous talk. Go back a couple of hundred years to when women could not vote, blacks could not vote, commoners were lucky to get a vote in most countries, and the majority of people were used as slaves for the industrial revolution machine. You forget too easily how people strived for the right to a vote, and reason was that the rulers abused them. Never in history has a King sacrificed anything for the people, except when forced to. They always looked down on you and used you as a slave. Not only that, they, as dictators exploited and raped other countries across the world like it was their divine right. People here have a total misunderstanding of what Maharishi is saying. He is (and always has said) that Brahman is the Charioteer, every person is Royalty, every person is divine being, every person is the Cosmic Administrator, every person in the Ruler of the Universe, every person is a Maharishi. There are no kings and subjects. He has simply been leading you down the garden path with that, in order to have people wake up to their own Godhead. Democracy is imperfect in the US and elsewhere in some respects, but you can vote, and enough of you can change things. For example, vote for Al Gore (he will stand), he is a TM'r too. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
---Below (Neo-Advaitin baloney that nothing exists). Factually incorect. You are confusing nothing as the null-set with relative existence which in itself has no independent existence. By using the phrase nothing at all, you fail to discriminate between the two classes of nothings. In fact, the you - in all people, Enlightened or not, is something: some type of biomass AS Consciousness. By focusing only on the Nothingness aspect of Brahman, you are basically a dualist. MMY would never fall into this Neo-Advaitin trap. It's pure Communism!. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're actually nothing at all. Quite literally nothing. In fact, you don't even exist. Never have, never will. Never confuse the objects of perception with consciousness. --- Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of off_world_beings Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 3:08 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?) People here have a total misunderstanding of what Maharishi is saying. He is (and always has said) that Brahman is the Charioteer, every person is Royalty, every person is divine being, every person is the Cosmic Administrator, every person in the Ruler of the Universe, every person is a Maharishi. There are no kings and subjects. He says that, but he doesn't run the movement that way. The movement is very hierarchical. There is a vast difference between the ways people at opposite ends of the social scale are treated. __ __ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-) Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. If a spiritual teacher becomes inaccessible, it's because he wants it that way, not because of the size of the organization. Bull.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-) Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. Same here. He was very accessible. Really? How many people are asking to see him? And to suggest that he doesn't want cash is silly. He has his uses for cash, just as MMY does. He uses pomp and circumstance quite well: http://www.dalailama.com/images/pgallery/printable3.jpg
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
On Mar 2, 2007, at 1:56 PM, sparaig wrote: Really? How many people are asking to see him? A crowd of people (about a hundred or so people), dharma bums, various cardinals and religious dignitaries, etc. And to suggest that he doesn't want cash is silly. He has his uses for cash, just as MMY does. He uses pomp and circumstance quite well: http://www.dalailama.com/images/pgallery/printable3.jpg It looks like a formal teaching to me, in which case, he does get all decked out and often is in an environment much like a mandala.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
---Virtually all Gurus grovel for money. However, The Dalai Lama may not secretly store it away like some others. Also, the Dalai Lama makes himself rather accessible - mingling with scientists, reporters; and at least fielding questions from various outsiders. reporters. He appeared on CNN appealing for people to be compassionate after Katrina. MMY OTOH only surrounds himself with sycophants. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-) Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. Same here. He was very accessible. Really? How many people are asking to see him? And to suggest that he doesn't want cash is silly. He has his uses for cash, just as MMY does. He uses pomp and circumstance quite well: http://www.dalailama.com/images/pgallery/printable3.jpg
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
On Mar 2, 2007, at 1:52 PM, qntmpkt wrote: ---Below (Neo-Advaitin baloney that nothing exists). Factually incorect. You are confusing nothing as the null-set with relative existence which in itself has no independent existence. By using the phrase nothing at all, you fail to discriminate between the two classes of nothings. In fact, the you - in all people, Enlightened or not, is something: some type of biomass AS Consciousness. By focusing only on the Nothingness aspect of Brahman, you are basically a dualist. Did you mean to say Nihilist? --- Mr. Duncan Greenlees, Madanapalli, wrote as follows:- One has at times had vivid flashes of a consciousness whose centre is outside the normal self and which seems to be inclusive. Without concerning the mind with philosophical concepts, how would Bhagavan advise us to work towards getting, retaining and extending those flashes? Does abhyasa in such experiences involve retirement? Sri Bhagavan answered: ‘Outside’ - For whom is inside or outside? They can be only so long as there are the subject and object. For whom are these two again? They both will resolve into the subject only. See who is in the subject. The investigation leads you to pure consciousness beyond the subject. Normal self is the mind. This mind is with limitations. But pure consciousness is beyond limitations and reached by investigation asabove outlined. Getting - Self is always there. One seeks to destroy the obstacles to the revelation of the Self. Retaining - Having once gained the Self it will be understood to be Here and Now. It is never lost. Extending - There is no extending the Self, for it is always without contraction or expansion. Retirement - Abiding in the Self is solitude. Because there is nothing alien to the Self. Retirement must be from some one place to another. There is neither the one nor the other apart from the Self. All being the Self, retirement is impossible and inconsistent. Abhyasa is investigation into the Self. - Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Virtually all Gurus grovel for money. However, The Dalai Lama may not secretly store it away like some others. Also, the Dalai Lama makes himself rather accessible - mingling with scientists, reporters; and at least fielding questions from various outsiders. reporters. He appeared on CNN appealing for people to be compassionate after Katrina. MMY OTOH only surrounds himself with sycophants. what's the problem? go follow the Dalai Lama around then.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:28 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?) The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. Same here. He was very accessible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Virtually all Gurus grovel for money. However, The Dalai Lama may not secretly store it away like some others. Also, the Dalai Lama makes himself rather accessible - mingling with scientists, reporters; and at least fielding questions from various outsiders. reporters. He appeared on CNN appealing for people to be compassionate after Katrina. MMY OTOH only surrounds himself with sycophants. You don't remember the 60's, eh? Here's a hint: SCI Symposium.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:17 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of off_world_beings Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 3:08 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?) People here have a total misunderstanding of what Maharishi is saying. He is (and always has said) that Brahman is the Charioteer, every person is Royalty, every person is divine being, every person is the Cosmic Administrator, every person in the Ruler of the Universe, every person is a Maharishi. There are no kings and subjects. He says that, but he doesn't run the movement that way. The movement is very hierarchical. There is a vast difference between the ways people at opposite ends of the social scale are treated. Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. I'm not talking about getting to see him. I doubt very much that the Dali Lama lavishes jewels and expensive clothes and cushy digs on the important people while treating the little people as expendable commodities. Have you ever been an important person to the Dali Lama?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
(snip) Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. I'm not talking about getting to see him. I doubt very much that the Dali Lama lavishes jewels and expensive clothes and cushy digs on the important people while treating the little people as expendable commodities. (snip) I saw the Dali, a few years ago, in Madison, Wisconsin... He seemed to have a whole hierarchy of people with him at the time. My feeling being around him was that he isn't enlightened or anything like that- just a very humble man, or at least appears to be that way... I saw the pope also; he seemed to be more like a figure-head, kind of like the pope. r.g.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, peterklutz peterklutz@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Maharishi seems to denounce democracy. ( Damn Democracy ) I will never accept this, until I see a bunch of people literally flying through the air spreading flowers of bliss. Until then, I will never give up on democracy (and that is nothing to do with Bush's ignorant redneck understanding of the issuejust to be clear for you Busheep warmonger retards) Where do you stand? Make your case. And...please...don't give us some BS about enlightened Kings. Until they are floating through the air dropping gold and bliss honey on everyone, they are just dead men walking. Where do you stand on democracy? Let us know Demo + cracy is a wonderful concept: people going about their own lives with no interference, or in a more less benign way: the oppression of the minority of the majority. In practice, unfortunately, democracy is neither of this - it's a system of government that has proven itself to be highly susceptible to perversion through sow-dissension-and-divide-and-rule attacks by small secret lodges of men seeking power. This weakness has been exploited on all scales of human organization: from international relations, to inside countries - to this list. That is dangerous talk. Go back a couple of hundred years to when women could not vote, blacks could not vote, commoners were lucky to get a vote in most countries, and the majority of people were used as slaves for the industrial revolution machine. You forget too easily how people strived for the right to a vote, and reason was that the rulers abused them. Never in history has a King sacrificed anything for the people, except when forced to. They always looked down on you and used you as a slave. Not only that, they, as dictators exploited and raped other countries across the world like it was their divine right. People here have a total misunderstanding of what Maharishi is saying. He is (and always has said) that Brahman is the Charioteer, every person is Royalty, every person is divine being, every person is the Cosmic Administrator, every person in the Ruler of the Universe, every person is a Maharishi. There are no kings and subjects. He has simply been leading you down the garden path with that, in order to have people wake up to their own Godhead. Democracy is imperfect in the US and elsewhere in some respects, but you can vote, and enough of you can change things. For example, vote for Al Gore (he will stand), he is a TM'r too. OffWorld I am afraid this voting system in the US a fraud. Voting means nothing. Democracy there, and in many other places in thirld world countries that the US can be compared to, is a fraud. This what you call democracy is a fraud, just like communism was. Maharishi is correct. What you cherish as democracy has no meaning anymore. If you cling to this idea indefinately, perhaps you too will have to go :-) Question. Who won the election in Mexico? Answer by Benjamin Creme: Strangely enough, it was an almost completely free and fair election, unlike the last two elections in the United States the last one being the most corrupt, I think, that has ever taken place in a modern state. You must make sure that you do not have another election like that. Do not stand for it. The voting machines were pre-programmed to change every fifth vote for Kerry into one for Bush. Those elections were completely false. Ohio was won by Kerry, although he lost it. Florida was won by Kerry, so was New Mexico. The result would have been completely different but for the corruption. There was a massive vote against Bush but also a strong vote for him. But Kerry won the election and was denied it, just as in the previous election Al Gore won the election and was denied it. The world would be a completely different place had either Gore or Kerry become President. You might have had Maitreya out in the open now. For more information, please see : http://www.shareintl.org
