--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Towards the end MMY was clearly irritated by Chopra - I remember > seeing a video where Chopra was speaking to the camera and MMY was in > the background and clearly noticeable were subtle side to side > movements of his jaw or face. Basically unlike Hagelin who talks > about Physics in a way MMY couldn't but always deferred to MMY when > it came to any pronouncement that related to Vedic/Hindu scriptures, > Chopra was a better public speaker than MMY and HE ALSO talked with > relative "authority" about Hindu cuilture (as far as Westerners were > concerned). To cap it all not only was he a medical doctor trained in > the West but now seemed to take on the mantle of Ayurvedic expert. So > MMY was definitely getting resentful about that. > > However I remember before the rift an Initiator predicting it simply > because his latter books and tapes amounted to a "Chopra" version of > Ayurveda, health, spirituality - that he was also introducing more > superficial thinking/feeling practices - mood making - and that was > bound to cause a rift. I was surprised to hear these views as at the > time Chopra was by far the most impressive exponenet of TM & MMY's > philosophy. But then it happened about 6 months later.. And I was > told that MMY said to Chopra much the same thing he'd said to Ravi > Shankar - if you need to teach go ahead but we must go our separate > ways.. Interesting that both Chopra & Ravi Shankar featured in > commentaries about MMY after his death.
I find it all fascinating because neither Chopra nor Shankar were ever around during the time I was. They were visible to and important to a whole new generation of TMers, and I know nothing about either one of them. Therefore it is curious to see the anger and demonization aimed at both of them by TMers. And NOW, after they've said something gracious about Maharishi after his death, the fawning over them being displayed by some of the *same* people (like Nabby) who previously couldn't say enough bad things about them. In trying to figure it out, I'm coming more and more to believe that the anger and the demonizations had their root in a model held up by Maharishi as the "ideal" of how one should deal with him and regard him -- Trotaka. It was one of his favorite stories to tell -- the not-too-bright devotee whose greatest accomplishment was *being* a total devotee. Trotaka (and by extension the "ideal" student") had no life of his own. He made no decisions on his own. He just did everything he was told, instantly, as if the orders had come from God himself. In this model, the "ideal disciple" never takes any credit for any of his own accomplishments or ideas. They are always "turned over" to the master. They were "inspired" by him, or actually "caused" by him mystically. *Everything* they do is as a result of the all-powerful, all-important "master." And, at the end of 50 years, who is left in charge of the TM movement? Those who bought into this model the most, that's who. Bevan Morris -- the ultimate toady, who quite obviously has no life or thoughts outside of Maharishi. Hagelin, who threw away a potentially brilliant career and pretty much all of his credibility to act like the Trotaka "ideal." King Tony, who refuses now to even *speak*, possibly for fear of being perceived as having ideas of his own. I guess there is nothing wrong with this IF you believe in the Trotaka model AS the "ideal." Me, I don't. I think it's a model for a certain *type* of seeker, the type of person who has so little going for them personally that they have to identify with someone else -- their "master" -- in order to even *have* a personality. That, to me, describes Bevan perfectly. But it *doesn't*, to me, describe the "perfect disciple." To me, that would be the person who has his own ideas and thoughts and is not afraid to express them, espec- ially if he perceives the "master" as possibly taking a wrong turn or making a less-than-brilliant decision. I would have respect for the person who occasionally *stood up to* Maharishi and suggested that there might be a better way of doing things than the one he was making a "pronouncement" about. Obviously, I would never have risen to prominence in the TM movement. :-) I would have been weeded out within a year of the time I left on my own, because I was seeing the TM movement take what I considered a "wrong direction," one that would bring it to ruin, and I would not have been able to keep my mouth shut and go along with it. I would have had to say something. And, as a result, I would have been toast. At the end of it all, I wish that more of the students who rose to the position of "having Maharishi's ear" had taken advantage of it to give him more real feedback, instead of being Trotaka-like "Yes Men." I further wish that Maharishi had had the humility to be able to accept them AS students while doing that, and not sent them away in disgrace. And I wish that he had had the humility to learn from his students, and not pretend that he was the only person in the movement with ideas that *could* be learned from. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Geez, Chopra was well after my time in the TMO > > > and, if I remember correctly, after yours as well. > > > Therefore I have no feelings about him one way or > > > another, and I've always wondered about the > > > strong anti-Chopra feelings I've seen expressed > > > on groups like this one. Some of the things said > > > by the very people who are now tempering their > > > previous demonizations of Chopra because he's > > > recently praised Maharishi have been in the past > > > nothing short of slander. > > > > > > What I finally decided was at the cause of all the > > > anger and obvious attempts to demonize Chopra and > > > convince others that something was wrong with him > > > or bad or devious about him is that HE WALKED > > > AWAY FROM MAHARISHI. > > > > > > For some people, especially those who never became > > > TM teachers or became involved with the TMO them- > > > selves, there is this "ideal" they have in their > > > heads of what a "disciple" should be. He should > > > basically just have no life and DO WHAT HE > > > IS TOLD by his "master." > > > > > > THEY have never done this, of course. Hell, they > > > never even went to the trouble to learn how to teach > > > TM. But they consistently look down on the people > > > who were at one time put in front of the public > > > by Maharishi and who then blew him off and walked > > > away and chose their own lives over his. > > > > > > Why? I think they try to demonize those who made > > > their own decisions and chose to live their own > > > lives because they're trying to suggest that THEY > > > would have done a "better" job of being a "true" > > > disciple, of "hitting one out of the park" as a > > > true devotee. Which is hilarious, because they > > > were never even in the ball game. > > > > > > Bottom line for me with regard to Chopra is that > > > he seems balanced (if a bit publicity-seeking to > > > sell his books), whereas the people trying so > > > desperately to rag on him are not. I don't know > > > him at all, but the things he says sound sane > > > and the things his detractors say do not. > > > > Still speculating because this phenomenon > > is so strange to me, and I'm still trying > > to figure it out. WHY are so many people > > so ANGRY at Chopra, enough to systematically > > try to demonize him? > > > > I think it has a lot to do with the scenario > > he described in this latest Huffington Post > > article. Maharishi clearly was jealous of > > Chopra because people were paying attention > > to him. > > > > I get the feeling that what's *really* going > > on with the detractors is that they feel the > > same jealousy. Chopra's "sin" is that he didn't > > play the game and pretend that everything was > > always about Maharishi. > > > > He didn't fawningly suggest that "everything > > I am I owe to my master" the way these people > > want him to. He took credit for his own accom- > > plishments. He reserved the right to live his > > own lifestyle and make his own decisions. And > > for some reason that's BAD in their eyes. > > > > It's like for them the way that a devotee > > "should" act is to constantly give all the > > credit for everything they've ever done in > > their lives to the "master." In other words, > > play the toady game the way Bevan always did. > > > > Chopra never did that, so that makes him some- > > one who "detracts" from the all-importantness > > of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. And we can't have > > that. Better suggest there is something wrong > > with him, or that he's a liar... > > >
