Maharishi's model of enlightenment has always puzzled me as well - right from the Intro lecture - really, why should a true Indian sage have any concern about World Peace when he should be talking about how the world is illusion . . . how the world is as it should be . . . shouldn't we be walking around pondering the "I AM" . . .
Perhaps this is what made Maharishi so unique - perhaps why he was invited into heaven (should that be the case) - because he cared about the world - because he placed raising world consciousness even above the self-realization of his followers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "abutilon108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Thanks for your comments about what I wrote, very insightful. I > > especially dug when you talked about people projecting special power > > on to you. And you knew it! Good for you. > > > > I'm still working it all out. I don't have a model of "enlightenment" > > I do currently have a model of enlightenment and what's interesting is > that it's a far cry from what Maharishi presented to us. It has more > to do with the dropping away of the illusion of separation/doership. > Of course one can find concepts in Maharishi's talks/books that would > seem to be about that, but his focus on relative perfection makes me > feel he wasn't really getting at what interests me. It's fascinating > to find myself having lost my interest in his descriptions of the > states of consciousness when once I was so enamored with that. It > feels as if my path has taken me into a whole different universe. > > > > these days really so I am back to the physiological stuff when > > thinking about Maharishi. I believe he was functioning in a different > > way than I am but so is Donald Trump. I don't have to ascribe a > > pathology to recognize that he and I are cut from radically different > > cloth psychologically. > > Actually, I don't like ascribing pathology to anyone, so not sure how > that came up except that idea -- of being able to act exactly as > someone would want you to be -- had been mentioned in regard to Scott > Peterson. > > And, much as I don't like to admit it, I'm not so sure I'm cut from a > radically different cloth psychologically from Maharishi... > > I don't buy the simple con theory. I think he > > believed most of his rap. > > Yes > > The gap is where the weirdness of all of us > > got reflected back to him due to his role with us all. Just as you > > described in your teaching experience. > > > > > >But he also didn't end up a billionaire with an > > > > uncompleted Gita commentary by accident... > > > > > > Didn't follow this -- please explain! > > > > > > > I just mean that he was money motivated at a Trumplike level. You > > don't get that rich by accident, it takes tremendous focus. Likewise, > > despite his claim to loving knowledge more than anything, he never > > finished most of his long term mental projects. If you spend day > > after day with him it is like chasing an ADD child, but leaving actual > > human lives in his wake. > > Interesting... > > > > > Nice rap man, I'll keep an eye out for your posts. > > This is the first group I've participated in. Still getting the hang > of it and am overwhelmed by the volume of posts (was even before MMY's > death increased the activity). Wanted to reply here, though, because > this line of conversation really interests me, and it's been helpful > to think/feel some things out here. Thanks! > > And by the way, I'm not a man... >
