---That's why MMY is a "200%" Guru: 100% for Advaita and 100% for (as an ideal: Heaven on Earth). But some clarification and discussion would be advisable. Just some thoughts: 1. First, what do we mean by "Heaven on Earth". We can go all the way back to Isaiah for some serious considerations in this matter - turning swords into plowshares, etc. This means and end to war and the basic New Deal stuff: full employment, a chicked in every pot, a car in every garage. Healthwise, an end to global diseases; since for example about 16,000 infants die daily due to malnutrition and the most pernicious cause of infant death: tainted water. Although MMY has not mentioned these specific problems, the various measures he's come up with (new or ancient) are designed to ideally cope with both aspects of life: Absolute and relative. Thus the 200%. Although as pointed out by another contributor, MMY's philolsophy is pure Advaita Vedanta (Cf. SBAL, BG); there are some major differences between his implementation of this and the "Neo-Advaitins". This brings us to the comment below: why not just address the dualistic illusion or delusion and zero in on the "I AM"?? (the Self). That's the Neo-Advaitin approach - the modern grandparents of this being Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj. The proposal in this school is that if one addresses the root cause of suffering (the ignorance of dualism), then ALL other levels of suffering will automatically be nipped in the bud. But here's the key point: Suffering on those levels will supposedly be eradicated among the Enlightened, REGARDLESS of what transpires in the relative sense. Thus, there's no particular effort to addresss problems "on their own level". So isn't that MMY's position? No quite. SOME of his proposals have been designed to address problems "on their own level", for example, those RAAM gold coins. To conclude, MMY though a proponent of Advaita Vedanta, is not in the same school as the Neo-Advaitins; and from his POV, just addressing the "I AM" would be insufficient. More is needed: the Maharishi Effect, scientific studies, Yagyas, universities, the whole bit. Neo-Advaitins (examples - Gangaji, Eckart Tolle, Byron Katie, etc...) are not into the peripheral stuff; since they believe that addressing the root cause of ignorance is sufficient. Ramana Maharshi regarded bodily existence as "excess baggage". Ultimately, IMO, "Glorification" of the physical body - attaining a Rainbow Light Body - would be a more desirable goal than simply realizing the Self and dropping the body as "excess baggage".
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" <inmadison@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > he also said the world is as you are, so world peace and self- > realization from that perspective are one and the same. >
