Dear Seeking,  good distillation of the problem of the free market of 
spirituality. 


The TM price range could better go as low as 150 or $250 in your analysis.  The 
200 or 150 dollar meditator is proly where it will actually pop for most people 
if the introduction has been good.  They start for good reasons otherwise.  The 
money falls mostly as a deterant at any price when they look at the crowns and 
robes context of the TM.org otherwise.
Selling it at $1,500 confirms it likely 'is a cult' about money as the rumors 
would tell.  They'd (the Rajas) would do better to just drop it to 150 and go 
for it.  The shakti of ten people starting at 150 is just better than one at 
1500.

an old meditator in Iowa,
-Buck
  



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" <seekliberation@...> 
wrote:
>
> > And, as MMY pointed out, the point of raising the price was to attract the 
> > super-wealthy because they set the policies of the world and "the rich do 
> > not shop at poor stores."
> 
> That almost sounds like Reaganomics in terms of spirituality.  
> 
> Reaganomics:  Tax breaks for the rich and powerful, the rich and powerful 
> expand business, then the little man on the bottom has a job to earn money.  
> 
> MMY:  Spiritual techniques for the rich and powerful, rich and powerful 
> establish policies to get others to practice TM, then TM becomes available to 
> the little man on the bottom.  
> 
> Neither philosophy or theory above seems to have worked that well, at least 
> not here in America.  There are so many versions of meditation out there, 
> some of which may produce the same subjective experiences as TM.  If TMO 
> keeps price at $1500, people will go elsewhere.  Between $300 and $500 is 
> enough to create a sense of appreciation of it, yet be somewhat affordable.
> 
> seekliberation
>    
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I understand your complaints, but the TM organization follows the 
> > guidelines set forth by MMY as interpreted by King Tony.
> > 
> > Shrugs.
> > 
> > L.
>


Reply via email to