--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" <reavisma...@...> wrote:
Right back at ya brother, thanks for the thoughtful post. That was exactly what I was hoping to read in response to my own, something to broaden my understanding of the guy. He is quite a mirror to reflect our current values isn't he? I'm sure he will always be useful in that capacity my whole life. There is something in the perfectionist standards in spiritual traditions that I am happy to have shed. I don't believe that I need any version of Maharishi in my life, living or dead, as a guide or inspiration. I'm happy to learn from everyone around me what I am missing or what I can improve on. No one person embodies what I am looking for or deserves the title guru for me now. We all could have done worse than hanging out with Maharishi. When he scooped me up I certainly needed some direction. Fifteen years later I popped out with that many years of clean living and some great experiences and skills that still serve me today. I had missed some growth areas in my magical thinking but that hasn't been too hard to catch up since then. I certainly value the opportunity to reflect on it all here on FFL. > > Curtis, as always I credit you with being perhaps the most articulate and > balanced of folks who post at FFL. Your input here, along with several > others, certainly, has really been formative in my own reflections on > Maharishi and evaluation of his role in my life. > > In your spectrum (below) I probably fall somewhere between the "not > authorized within his tradition" and your own identified bus stop; although I > totally recognize my own long term stops at the intial stages outlined in > your model. > > I believe (don't know, but believe) that he was sincere in his initial > offerings and I also believe that he remained a true believer throughout his > life regarding the fundamental Hindu philosophies that underlay his > meditation techniques. > > Within the Indian, Hindu culture he grew up in, it's easier to see how he saw > his own unique task to spiritually regenerate the world as being an extension > of the guru-god-man role that he saw in Guru Dev and took on as a "mission > received" from Guru Dev after his death. It hardly needs to be stated that > Guru Dev was by all accounts a true believer as well, but was a person who > apparently walked the walk of piety and rectitude and spirituality his entire > life, and did not contradict that lifestyle by any unseemly deviation. It > doesn't make him god or anything, but it does attest to his sincere > commitment to the principles he espoused. > > I believe at some point, likely in the mid to late 70s, when the TM siddhis > were introduced, that the initial phase of Maharishi's mission had begun to > dissipate and he reverted to a much more obviously commercial approach to the > organization, now no longer a movement. > > I believe that the Maharishi I first met was much more the faithful and > sincere mimic of his own guru and he exhibited the charm and charisma that I > imagine was evident in Guru Dev. Unlike Guru Dev, however, he did not have > the same long term immersion in meditation and spiritual lifestyle that Guru > Dev had, and even more so, was exposed to peoples and influences that Guru > Dev's cultural isolation kept him insulated from. > > I believe that both Maharishi and Guru Dev were guys, just guys. Maharishi > was my first link, however, to a human cultural tradition that I admire and > respect, if not wholeheartedly believe in anymore. For me they were, as you > pointed out in an earlier post, symbols for my own sense of what an ideal > person would be like, and if either of them fell short of that ideal (and how > couldn't they?), nonetheless, they were the catalyst to recognize that ideal > within myself. As many of those who post here continue to do to this day, I > also continue to seek that out within myself and express it to whatever > degree I can in my interactions in this life and thank my good fortune for > that opportunity. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > One of the the best gems from my last Judy marathon was the topic of how we > > view Maharishi. I got to thinking about the continuum of views of the guy > > and how many of them I have held at one time or another. I'll set out a > > map so everyone can find themselves but please feel free to add the views I > > am missing. Of course everything will be tinged with my own feelings > > repressed or otherwise so some of you may need to re-phrase the options for > > your own comfort. > > > > Let's start with the teenage pure love that many of us started out with and > > which is becoming increasingly rare I suspect, the perfect Maharishi-daddy. > > > > He is hard working and often absent (very 1950's) doing world shaping > > important work. He has no physical needs as a monk, and is as pure as the > > driven snow in the boner department (always flaccid) His role as the "tool > > of nature" does sound a bit phallic. He is selflessly working for the good > > of the world. His moods are always happy unless he needs to act as if he is > > mad for the good of the person he is appearing mad at. (People around him > > used to report feeling blissful when he chewed them out.) This is the > > mythic Maharishi image that is easiest to maintain if you don't get too > > close. > > > > Then there is the "but he is also a man" stage. Here we leave his comic > > role unsullied, it is still pure and cosmic but he emerges as an actual > > human with likes and dislikes.(He puts sugar in his ginger ale reports > > Charlie Lutes to our delight.) Only the cute things about him personally > > are emphasized and only a tinge of his cranky side is allowed to enter our > > pretty little heads. Here he might get mad for real real but it is still > > nature working through him when he is acting like a baby in need of a > > diaper change. It made us feel closer to him to see some of his human > > side. I hung out here when I was in the movement. > > > > For some it progressed to "no he really IS a MAN" stage which Judith > > covered in her book too well for me to add anything. You can still view > > him as having a cosmic mission but you just have to accommodate the > > missionary position into your view of him. > > > > Then some go to "he was a dude like Bill Clinton" where you have to > > accommodate the image of him coming on to young women with the finesse of > > an elevator masher. This is a bit of a tipping point in how easy it is to > > still see him in his cosmic role but acting like a frat boy. I doubt this > > level is inhabited by too many people because it really shoves a conundrum > > in your face. (he, he, he says Bevis and Butthead) > > > > Now we have to strip Maharishi of some of his cosmic stripes to get to the > > next level. I think the first level would be to say that he was not an > > authorized teacher in his tradition and was (sincere or not) NOT doing > > God's work here on earth. This is where some of the more spiritually > > minded people here hang out I believe when they reject Maharishi's > > authority. > > > > Next we might conclude that he was sincere but totally misguided in his > > beliefs. He really really wanted to spiritually regenerate the world but > > his human failings got in the way and he went all Liberace meets Hugh > > Heffner on us. He got distracted from his holy mission, but there still was > > a holy mission. He really was a scientist of consciousness using us as lab > > rats to try to discover how to "save the world" in a Hindu sense. But he > > didn't really know what he was doing and was winging it all with sincere > > intentions. > > > > Then we might see him as a super religious guy who had a personality > > disorder. (I get off the bus here.) He did believe all the religious stuff > > and believed he was doing good for the world but it was filtered through > > the twisted lens of grandiosity and narcissism. It wasn't that he wanted > > to be a user but he couldn't help himself. He had a contempt for his > > fawning followers and felt isolated from them. Only the human warmth of a > > parade of nubile hot tail could warm the cockles (Bevis again with the he, > > he, he) of his heart and especially that tender sub-cockle area that can > > only be reached with a the handle of a French riding whip. (Hey if you got > > this far don't complain if I serve up some unfiltered Curtis.) He thought > > TM was doing good and even believed the fawning scientists falling all over > > each other to give him good news so they could be close. (they were all in > > the Happy Days stage of their love for him) The sidhis didn't work out as > > planned but people seemed to like them and he may or may have not have > > actually believed that a bunch of people smelling each others farts in the > > same room brought world peace. > > > > End of the line. Here we have the straight up charlatan. All guru-y in > > front of the cameras but once the lights went out it was cigars and scotch > > with a blond bouncing on his knee. He was running a scam on the stupid > > Westerners and fleecing them out of the money they didn't even deserve to > > begin with. Trust fund babies milked out of their inheritances and so > > forth. Tell a big lie and people will believe that some of it MUST be > > true, promise them the moon and they will believe that are as important as > > the mission he made up for them. Yeah all you outcastes are gunna reach > > enlightenment in this lifetime, sure that's the ticket. Line up with your > > international money orders and step right up to Maharishi's magic circus > > where you will physically fly in the air some day, oh yeah even you > > fatties, cuz it's magic and in magic land even Dumbo soared above the earth > > like Tinker Bell. > > > > There is one more level I can think of where a super spiritual person could > > see him as a devil leading people AWAY from "true spirituality." That > > level creeps me out too much to elaborate. > > > > So there you have it. A continuum with lots of gaps, I hope some others add > > their own, I don't pretend this is complete. But it was an interesting > > exercise for me to consider where I fall on the scale of Maharishi views > > from God to demon. > > >
