--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote: > <snip> > > I also think an important consideration is how the women > > he was with felt about it all. If they were willing and > > eager and felt ok about, then that goes a long way to > > making it ok. > > I'd guess most were willing and eager to start with, but > with these kinds of relationships it's usually the > development and especially the denouement that causes > pain, at the time and sometimes for many years afterward. > > When you're young, you tend not to think too much about > how what you see as a big adventure is all going to turn > out.
Yes the young have it hard. Even some in their 40's don't think too much about how its going to turn out -- and get sucked into the adventure, the falling down the rabbit hole, the magical mystery tour -- thats a big part of relations. > For that matter, someone who's been sheltered from normal > social relationships with the opposite sex for as long as > MMY was isn't likely to think about it either. Large assumption perhaps. Did he start his activity in the 70's? or the 50's? Or, as nabulous said, he did not comment even if Purusha took a getaway weekend. Maybe he could relate. > > It's a mug's game to try to figure out how MMY felt about > anything, but I'm really curious. From what I've read, it > seems the dilly-dallying took place during a specific > period--I have the impression it was a decade or less--and > then stopped. Your typical philanderer *doesn't* stop. So > why did MMY? Conscience? The pragmatic aspects? Why the philanderer image? Its surprising to me that many here seem to have this rogue image of the man -- it was all exploitive -- little red riding hood and the big bad wolf. Perhaps. But so many other possibilities. While some will differ, those are not the qualities I found in the man. And as far as age, there were some quite attractive mid-30's women around. (and some school marms -- its not a universal observation) Would mid 30's cosmopolitan European women have been OK? > > The difference in authority and power between MMY and the > > women, however, is another issue > That's the biggie, IMHO. It really changes the consensuality > equation. > It would with any powerful man who holds a lot of > authority over a younger woman, but *especially* with a > supposedly enlightened spiritual teacher and a disciple. I used to think along those lines. But I don't now. One can paint a picture of and image power sex, but I don't see it. I don't see him forcing himself on anyone, using power as a coercive threat. As I have said, its quite plausible to me that it was more the inverse of that, if anything -- but I don't think anyone was forcing anyone. What was he saying -- if going down the former road "I am am going to withhold enlightenment to you if you don't do me?" One woman J. in particular was shaken by the thing as recounted by skin boys (who have their own shaking out when replaced -- not all leave happily -- and projecting their disgruntlement on others a bit is not unfathomable.) Judith it appears was not, but her book will say. I have been shaken by relations -- particularly those that went south. Basket case for a bit. The world is full of stories of men and women having a rough patch when or as relations end. Most people understand this when entering relations. Its a part of life. And even if naive -- then an affair with Biff in hte room next door at the TTC may have greatly shaken her. Indeed, I wish I could wave a magic wand and proclaim "No more hurt from relations. No More! poof!" but -- thats not life. Thats a fairy tale. How did J or others think it was going to end? To be the Mrs MMY? To be a consort for 30 years "in the palace"? Raise a family? I believe that is a naive, condescending and simplistic view of her. How did she say, or other say, the affairs started? I may not remember the details -- but I don't recall coercion or pressure. I recall an eager girl thinking this was great. While some appear to have seen a lot of naive country girls just off the turnip truck around him -- I did not -- but I hardly saw everything / everywhere. There were some deeply devoted types -- maybe those were seen as turnip girls -- however, I see a large distinction between naivity and devotion. Others I saw were sophisticated women -- even if 22 -- though a lot were in mid to later 20's as I recall. This was the 70's not the 50's -- that I saw. (though it would not be a shock if there was such activity in the 50's I have heard some inklings of that.) > One thing I *haven't* encountered, that I can recall-- > somebody correct me if I'm wrong--in any of the stories that > *is* a feature of many similar stories about other gurus is > the promotion by the guru of the idea that having sex with > him is going to further the woman's spiritual evolution. (Of > course, that's an assumption the women may have adopted on > their own.) If so, then those women were out for themselves -- or I guess themSelves. Women were also sleeping with rock stars and politicians. And bosses. Not all out of pure love I gather. Though that does not mean love or affections was not there -- but they have their own agendas. > The sense I get of the overall picture is that MMY was just > pathetically *naive* about the whole business. He knew it > had to be kept quiet, but other than that, he really didn't > know what he was doing, especially emotionally, or have any > idea of the possible psychological repercussions, on the > women or himself. Sounds like millions of other affairs, not limited to M. But this idea of coverup and shhhh gotta keep it quiet seems off base to me. What about discreetness and privacy as motives instead of something sinister? Why did you keep your affairs quiet and private in the 70's? I kept my relatively private because they were not anyone else's business. > > > (why not a woman saint more his own age?). > > That would have been tremendously difficult to arrange, > given the box he'd put himself in. And it would probably > have been even harder to keep quiet than fooling around > with selected disciples. While match making for the master is a nice parlor game, he went down the path he wanted to go down. (Which doesn't exclude some saints) > > > I look forward to reading what Judith has to say about > > how she felt about it, how it affected her then and as > > the years passed. > > Me too. But based on her Web site, I have to wonder about > conflicts of interest skewing the tale. >
