> i personally enjoy both music, and what Maharishi brought, and think > that what he did and said were just as un self conscious and well > meaning and universal as what any of us do and say. he was a > creation of his environment just like anyone else, and how much you > value his existence is a personal thing. buy into it, or not-- > doesn't matter.
You are missing the point of the discussion. If I claimed that I am the only person in the history of music to play "real" music. If I claimed that when I play music it is different from any other human alive today who plays music. That my music has magical effects on my listeners unlike the effect of any other music, including all the music of the past. If I claimed that it was the greatest good fortune of all mankind that I decided to play music... Someone might reach for a DSM-IV. Not you, I know. But someone who is interested in these distinctions. In my world everyone is not the same Jim. Some people are a bit "hinkie." And speculating on exactly what version of "hinkiness" Maharishi was running might be of more interest to people who spent some time with him personally than those who didn't. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > <My gut feeling is that if you describe MMY's behavior in detail > to a > > number of psychologist and psychiatrists, they will guess that he > had > > a personality disorder.> > > > > So you don't think they would just join him in his self perception > as > > being the most important human being in history? What if they > heard > > Bevan telling them that he really really was, many many many many > many > > many many times? How about then? Still no? This is going to be > > harder than I thought... > > > > This is the most troubling aspect of the cute little holy man > picture > > of Maharishi, his extreme version of grandiosity. And it is also > > where the devotion of his followers cross over into a darker place > of > > enabling a person with a real psychological problem. A person who > > might have needed help instead of a steady stream of ass kissing. > > > > Unless of course you want to give his own self perception another > > shot? You know, the perspective where EVERY other meditation > teacher > > and spiritual leader was his inferior. Where he was uniqually > saddled > > with the responsibility to spiritually regenerate all of mankind > > alone, and only he among ALL the spiritual representatives of the > > Vedic tradition in India knew the SPECIAL SECRETS. > > > > The ONLY authentic spiritual teacher, or at least the best of them > > ALL. The TOPPERMOST of the POPPERMOST, a wonder unto himself AMEN > and > > Hallelujah! Words cannot express how great and important he was, > yet > > his minions try... > > > > And people wonder why I need the DSM-IV? It is to keep me somewhat > > sympathetic to his condition instead of ... being less sympathetic, > > let's just leave it at. > > > why are you so interested and caught up in Maharishi's ego? its all > ego, ego, ego, to you. the central core of what he was and what he > did you always relate in terms of what he must have thought about > himself and what others thought about him. > > i see him essentially as a fungus or a hummingbird or a galaxy. > playing his part in the universe just like anyone else. just as you > are a musician, created out of both your impulses and abilities, and > the way your environment responds to you, (i.e. you wouldn't be a > musician for very long if your environment told you you weren't any > good), same with Maharishi. if there hadn't been any universal need > for him, no one would have heard another word from him, and that > would be that. > > ah, but you say it is all contrivance and buying into a lie, and > manipulation. and i respond that some might say the same thing about > music, that it has no intrinsic value and is unecessary, and those > that enjoy it are brainwashed into enjoying a false, wholly > consensual reality, that there is no there, there, and that the only > reason you do it is to be falsely gratified by those who buy into > the artifice of music. even to make money from it is a con- you play > soemthing ephemeral in time and space and after people have paid > their money, they walk away with nothing, except a pleasant memory, > and you walk the other way with their money. > > i personally enjoy both music, and what Maharishi brought, and think > that what he did and said were just as un self conscious and well > meaning and universal as what any of us do and say. he was a > creation of his environment just like anyone else, and how much you > value his existence is a personal thing. buy into it, or not-- > doesn't matter. >
