> My take, anyway.
>
And I think your take is accurate for what I lived particularly in
India for a few months but also in Sidhaland where we would get
directions to follow. So we certainly believed it as you presented
it.The trick was to fully engage with each project fully, even knowing
that the next day it would mean nothing. That was not always easy.
I'll be it was even tougher for the guys whose money he was burning up
on projects that never received follow through attention. As an guy
in my 20's it wasn't too much of a stretch.
But in retrospect is seems kind of odd to me. And it certainly got
him off the hook for following through with things that might have
bored him, conveniently. Looking at Maharishi as an enlightened guy
who knew what he was doing lends itself to your interpretation. In my
view of him as a guy who was completely winging it, and who created a
situation where every whim was catered to, it comes out differently.
I find my own comfort in thinking about him as a guy who, like a
lot of hight achievers, had a bit of ADD.
Now I think that pursuing dreams with consistency shows the kind of
personal character I can relate to. Maharishi had a bit of both
working IMO. I guess he got the movement he wanted.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > > Take these three things together (and perhaps a few others)
> > > and M's constant crazy project binges make sense, IMO, and
> > > puts it all in context. Seen in this light, his binges were
> > > a most wonderful and creative dance over 40 years. And a
> > > wonderful path for some who could keep up and withstand the
> > > craziness -- and enjoy inner fruit of the whole crazy exercise.
> >
> > Doesn't this whole belief, which was so common among fulltimers,
> > really fly in the face of his whole teaching? It is a relative
> > breaking of the connection with the fruits of action only and has
> > nothing to do with your state of consciousness being established
> > in being. It sounds like the kind of traditional notion that
> > Maharishi would devote a whole lecture dispelling.
>
> Yes, in a sense it's moodmaking, but under the
> guidance of the guru, and in the context of
> vigorous activity rather than self-indulgent
> introspection.
>
> Also in the context of surrender-to-the-guru,
> which operated only in MMY's direct sphere of
> influence among his most dedicated followers.
>
> Their meditation program was working on them
> from the inside, and he was working on them
> from the outside, to the same end--dissolving
> attachment.
>
> The guy at Asbury Park said it was like another
> technique, but an external one.
>
> It's not something MMY would have recomended to
> rank-and-filers, because it wouldn't work in
> that context.
>
> He didn't completely eschew certain kinds of
> moodmaking anyway. "What you put your attention
> on grows," for example; or keeping his behavioral
> rasayanas "lively in the mind"; or "Don't do what
> you think might be wrong." All those were in the
> relative, intentional manipulations of one's
> thinking.
>
> But *none* of the above would do much for you if
> you weren't transcending regularly. They were
> designed to be applied in the context of, and to
> take advantage of, expanding consciousness.
>
> My take, anyway.
>
