--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: >
> > About the trickyness: It is always musing only years *after* > > having been tricked. You wouldn't be tricked, if you knew it > > at the time. The real question though is, how much of what > > one currently believes is part of this trick set-up? How much > > are you still investing into this after many years? > > Me? Not much more than doing my program (and participating > here, I guess). I was never really in a position to be subject > to any of the "tricks." I took what made sense and left the > rest. But I was older than most here when I started TM (33) and > not a seeker (at least not in the traditional sense), so I had > a good solid buffer of skepticism. This was more of a generic you, like one. Not a question to you personally. Anybody concerned, at one point I think has to look into his beliefsystem and see what kind of baggage one is carrying on. > > This is what ex CIA agent Bill Coffin had to say:"The ends > > don't always justify the means. But they are the only thing > > that can." > > Wise man. (I actually knew him later on, in his Reverend > days; I used to volunteer in his office at Riverside Church in > New York. He'd been through a lot of tough stuff and brought > the lessons he'd learned to the minister gig. Quite a guy.) Amazing. I just read it in a book, while I was writing. > > I don't think so. Why produce foam matresses, when the great > > breakthrough is near? > > So folks don't break their backs in the meantime? What were > they using before that? He talked about producing foam, we were of course already using foam. But why set up a plant for producing foam, if we wouldn't fall down anymore soon? That was basically the content of the question. And Maharishi answered it is only for the newcomers. This shows that at this time people expected to fly really very soon. And to me his suggestion indicated, that Maharishi didn't believe so. > This was 1978, only one year after the > > public introduction of the Siddhis. It was one of the few > > give-aways he made. > > I think by that time it had begun to seem less likely > that it would happen Real Soon Now. Not true at all. It was exactly the time we expected it any moment. > I'm really talking > more about the period of the six-month courses in '75 > and '76. In 75 the 6month courses just came up and people there started to experiment with all kind of techniques, there was no formal TM-Sidhi program yet. Besides that very few people were involved. Around 76 we heard the first rumours of people having various Sidhis, but there was no public anouncement yet. It was still something only inside the movemment people knew. Foam was introduced around that time. At the end of 76 many TM teachers went to the 6 month course, some of the ones who left afterwards. Only by spring/summer 77 Siddhis were introduces publicly, all the big newspapers were full of it. In that time sidha prep courses for non teachers were started, this required still many weeks, I think about 8 weeks. On these courses many started to hop spontaneausly. I got my first siddhis in 1977, and flying in the beginning of 1978. Only in 78 there were rumours that Maharishi would fly over lake lucern at a press conference.Maharishi himself made video-taped announcements that people would still really fly (above the taxi instead of sitting inside of it, I think it was even printed.) So the expectation around the year 1978 was still very high. > By '78, it was beginning to look like it would > be a long slog, although they didn't come clean about > that until 1985 or so when they held the first public > Yogic Olympics. Not so in 78, sure in 85 we didn't expect too much anymore, but that might also be individually different. When the first public demonstration was held, it was actually August 86, it soon became for Maharishi another campaign to just create some more newspaper articles and publicity. He thought of sending groups all over India to demonstrate it. When he heard the newspaper coverage, he asked what kind of interest raising campaign we could do next. Just anything that would blow peoples minds, something BIG as he said. > There are other saints, who > > simply don't do any of this, who don't make promises, who > > don't create a 'hype'. > > Well, sure. Different strokes for different saints. Isn't that > a function of personality rather than sainthood per se? Maybe. But trying to get many followers raises an eyebrow to me today. There is something fishy about it. Does anybody want to be deceived, if he knows that this is what it is? You are not suggesting this seriously. You also loose trust over time. If one finds out, somebody has tricked you, by promising things which don't turn out in decades, you'll have to ask, how much else was being tricked? How deep does the deception go? Where is the end the bottom line? That's my point. > For some. For others, it's part of the attraction. Seems to be! When I see that TM people are leaving to other movements, who are even worse in their deception and promises. When I read this, I say, hey, no more, I've already had enough of this. I've been through this already. No outrageous claims anymore, no big groups. > True. I certainly don't mean to trivialize anyone's suffering. > I know a lot of people went through some very difficult stuff. > But some of them may have derived more spiritual growth from > the hard times than those of us who never got sucked in. Not so much suffering really. I didn't really have a bad time. I was more concerned about missed opprtunities concerning my future, for example old age. > I still don't think he could have known that the experiences > would be satisfying enough to keep people at it for years, > decades, without that atmosphere of excitement of the early > days of the program. Well obviously quite a few he couldn't hold, the movement has been downsizing quite a bit, and has been so ever since. I don't know what people think when they make promises they cannot keep. Make the next promise? Give some smart explanations. Reinterpret events so they make sense posthum? Like saying you wanted to get rid of Marcos, when in fact you said that he will help to give the movement the great breakthrough and acknowledgement? Introducing something new, Ayurveda, Jyotish, Yagyas. If the child doesn't like the toy anymore, give him a new toy. > > There is a synergistic effect for the people involved. > > Nothing more. > > That's what I was talking about, although I'm not willing to > rule out a greater effect entirely. Okay. I rule it out 99%. > If so, Fairfield may not be the best place to accomplish it, > given all the dissenters. But I guess they're stuck with it > because that's where the domes are. Exactly! The movement is really low key now. They don't introduce anything new or invest a lot. They just try to keep the flock together with the methods they know. With minimal effort. > Not if you think the rules are arbitrary. But maybe they think > the rules are critically important to achieve the supposed > saving effect. This again falls under the heading: 'Purity of teaching'. Just reading this Freud article (about Civilization and Discontent) yesterday was a real eye-opener for me in that sense. My interpretation of it, but it seems to work: The basic experience of Transcendence (Oceanic feeling), being completely Self-oriented (for Freud narcisissm) obviously needs a juxtaposition, in the Other, which in Freud is represented by the father figure. In this case the father would be Maharishi, now represented by the movement he created. As for Freud Thanatos, the death drive, or the drive towards dissolution, is the origin of all agression, which has to be checked by culture, especially the father figure representing law. To me this makes sense. Of course I do not subscribe to everything Freud says, but I do think that he had some insight there. What people seek in the movement, is security. Security is represented by laws. You give up freedom because you are afraid of it. Maharishi always spoke of law, the Vedas, natural law etc. He actually spoke out against fear.based administration, but used it himself - citing the Upanishads (out of fear the wind blows) > I'd guess the thinking is that if a TM teacher feels he or she > can learn something from another guru that MMY didn't provide, > s/he'll be less committed to doing program to MMY's exact > specifications and more likely to experiment. There are saints who don't even have a teaching. No I think it's a matter of clear determination on the teachers side, THIS is something the movement could emphasize. They could allow people to see saints, but not go to courses they offer, or get initiated into a new mantra. They could be simply upfront about what they require. > > Now, give me a break. If visiting other teachers is a threat > > to the effectiveness, why then distinguish teachers from > > ordinary siddhas? > > Their program is more powerful? That is, it contributes more to > the effect, and not doing it exactly per MMY would more > negatively affect the results? Well, even the movement doesn't claim this. > > Why organizers from participants? > > Again, organizing for another teacher shows a lack of > commitment to doing things the Maharishi Way. But it wouldn't disturb the program, so the program would only be used to punish lack of commitment, my original statement. > > You know, there ARE groups, which silently meditate, and > > everybody is allowed to do the meditation program he likes, > > and the atmosphere is awesome, beautiful. There are churches, > > like the Bahai temples of worship, where everyone can > > silently worship in his own way, at Mother Meeras darshans, > > everybody can do what he wants, as long as he sits silently, > > and as many here report, the atmosphere is very beautiful, at > > Ammachis darshans there is loud singing, okay, but still > > everyone can participate the way he wants. If you ever have > > experienced something like this, you know what you think of > > such rules. > > I wouldn't make the assumption that my enjoyment is the sole > criterion. And that's really the problem I see. I think people should go by their experiences, not what someone says or claims. You can do what a person suggests for some time, to give it a chance - and then go be your experience, not what some other people say. > > There is no rationale except Maharisisez. And even that is > > not so clear, as he obviously said different things to > > different people and at different times. > > Well, I'd like to hear it from one or the other of them. If > it's just Maharishisez, I'd like to know *what* MMY said, even > if it varied. I know what Maharishi said in various circumstances. I know what Nandkishore said. All that points to the fact that it doesn't matter with regard to the program, the only concern is with the teaching. If somebody doesn't teach, where is the problem? > I wouldn't be surprised to learn that at least some of the > folks who implement the policy--who make the actual decisions > as to who gets in and who doesn't--are skeptical about the > rules and are willing to bend them, letting people in even if > they suspect they're lying. So that really seems to be the solution, lying. > Lying does have its disadvantages, as you note, but they may or > may not outweigh the advantage of having a larger group in the > domes. Yes, but it damages the psychology, the attitude of the people, their attitude towards the movement. > <snip> > > If your guru is strong enough, you will not leave him, > > because you'll easily experience that he is stronger than any > > other saint you see. So you won't run away. > > Is everyone's judgment spot-on? Or do folks make mistakes > sometimes? Sure, but that is part of life. If they make mistake with saints, they already may have made a mistake before, when they choose TM. How will you distinguish? > > Okay. I get you, I understand. For a long time I thought > > the same, be tolerant, be sympathtic to the people who are > > in it, who believe in it, and don't try to raise doubts for > > them. Okay, I see the point. > > Not quite the point I was making. Ideally, TBs and TM critics > alike should see the same picture, complete with all the > uncertainties and unknowns and doubts and shades of gray. I'm > no more tolerant of absolutism on the TB side than I am on the > TM critic side. And if either demonstrates that they do see the > whole messy picture, but the TB decides to carry on anyway and > the critic decides to remain a critic anyway, that's fine with > me. At least they know what they're dealing with. Fine with me too. But I was in this situation, and I tried to live according to the outline I just told you. Especially if you are an authority to some people. > <snip> > > > I've said here before that a great deal of MMY's > > > teaching ends up in contradiction or paradox or > > > infinite regress when you take it right down to the > > > nitty-gritty. "Support of nature," for example, falls > > > apart in the face of "Unfathomable is the course of > > > action," and vice-versa. > > > > > > But any teaching about Advaita-style Unity that > > > *didn't* end up that way would be inauthentic, by > > > definition. > > > > I think you a making a big leap here, from obvious > > manipulated data, and games-playing, to basic > > philosophical riddles. > > If anything, it's the reverse: I'm suggesting that the > intractable philosophical riddles foster confusion and > misunderstanding and wrong choices and disillusionment and > conflict and even game-playing and corruption. Thats a strong statement. In traditional Advaita there is a clear division between higher and lower knowledge. There is a double approach. This is even in the upanishads. So, everything concerning ethics, it's the lower knowledge how to behave etc. There are clear rules. There are also different levels in Advaita, and the paradox is actually only with the ultimate level. > But Marcos did leave, and that was surely a very positive thing > for the Philippines. See, I don't think the Maharishi Effect, > if it exists, necessarily always works the way we--including > Maharishi--expect or intend it to. That's a nice perspective to have, but for me nothing more than a rationalization. Take the Iran example, was it better to have Chomeini than the Shah? Was the reason the siddhas had to leave that they had fulfilled their task, or was it rather that they were fighting to get their visas extended but just couldn't? If they had fulfilled their mission, why did they try to extend their visas? It's always easy to say posthum, well what came out is just what we wanted, we just didn't say it at the time, rather we lied, but for the good of everybody.
