--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <boo_li...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Ginsberg sniffed it out early on. It took most of us longer. > > Maharishi was not cool. Simple as that. > > I agree completely, mmy was not cool. But he was a natural marketer > and knew to hide his fundamentalist views early on, so I'm not too > down on myself for being fooled. Plus I feel he really changed over > time. This is heresy to tmers who view the man as absolute > enlightened non-changing, but like everyone he changed as he got > older. 2 main factors I think: externally, power corrupts and > absolute power corrupts absolutely, and internally a deflected > kundalini energy flow which gives fantastic "spiritual experiences" > in youth but being unintegrated (an experience not a life lived) > leads increasingly to imbalanced mental/emotional states later on. > You see this a lot in successful, high shakti, charismatic gurus > who when they come on the scene are clearly drawing on some > internal spiritual energy but who act increasingly nuts over time.
Well said. It's a fascinating phenomenon to watch. I wonder sometimes whether anyone who was close enough to him to have seen these changes over time first hand will ever have the balls to write about it honestly. That, after all, was what I had to do when writing about Rama. He, too went through a period of high, high experiences, so high that you got high just being in the same room with them. But over time, possibly for the very reasons you named above, as far as I could tell the experiences faded or got warped and he lost it heavily. IMO, of course. I could have written a glossed-over, blissninny version of my experience with the man for 14 years, and skipped the parts where he got crazy. Other of his students did just that. But the man asked me to write a book about him, and I foolishly said yes. It was a commitment I was stuck with even after he died. And the only way I could figure out *to* write it (and get that monkey off my back) was to tell the *whole* story, as I saw it, and tell it as honestly as I could. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have an honest, non- blissninny biography of Maharishi, told from the same "There were great moments, but there were also these moments over here that weren't so great" perspective? How long will it take before one gets written? *Will* one ever get written?
