"Bevan seems to be channeling Maharishi's desire".... http://artfangs.com/NewFiles/Painting29.html
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <babajii_99@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <babajii_99@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I've been thinking a bit about the "dome policies" > > > that lots of people rail against but no one does > > > anything about. Y'know...the policies that say that > > > anyone who "sees another spiritual teacher" just > > > isn't welcome in the domes. What is really being > > > *said* by such a policy? > > > > > > Isn't it -- in essence -- "Thou shalt not receive > > > any spiritual advice except from *us*, under pain > > > of excommunication?" > > > > > > Even when Maharishi was alive, there was always an > > > aspect of "jealous lover" relationship anxiety to > > > this policy. Maharishi simply didn't tolerate his > > > follower/lovers "seeing anyone else." He was not > > > exactly into spiritual polyamory. It was his way > > > or the highway, life-long fidelity. "Thou shalt > > > go home from the dance with the one who brung ya," > > > that sorta thing. > > > > > > Now that he's dead, the gist of the message being > > > sent by the TMO to its few remaining hangers-on is, > > > "Thou shalt remain true to Maharishi and not 'cheat > > > on him,' even though he's dead." Or, more simply, > > > "Thou shalt not remarry or date after your one-time > > > spiritual spouse has kicked the bucket." The idea > > > being proposed is that one has to remain "faithful" > > > forever, and turn nowhere else or to no one else > > > for comfort and companionship. > > > > > > This might make sense (on some Woo Woo nonsensical > > > level) if the TMO *itself* had within its ranks > > > *anyone* that one could turn to in hopes of spiritual > > > wisdom or insight. But it doesn't. Not one. Maharishi's > > > legacy was to leave absolutely no one "in charge" whose > > > personality or aura or vibe inspired the least bit of > > > confidence in them as a spiritual teacher. Almost no > > > one *in the TMO* would walk across the street to see > > > any of these guys if they put themselves out there on > > > the spiritual smorgasbord tour, much less anyone else > > > who was not part of the TMO. There is no there there. > > > > > > So what do they *do* about this? They cling to MMY's > > > "Thou shalt not" policies and declare that even though > > > there is no one in the TMO to "go to" if you have > > > questions about your spiritual practice or for advice > > > on some of its deeper aspects, "Thou shalt not go > > > anywhere else. *Or* else." > > > > > > In a way, this policy is a bit like the olde Indian > > > practice of sati or suttee, in which a wife whose > > > husband died was expected to either live the rest of > > > her life as an old maid, worshiping the memory of > > > her dead hubbie and never remarrying, or in extreme > > > instances, throwing herself on his funeral pyre. One > > > gets the feeling sometimes that the leaders of the > > > TM movement would be more comfortable with TMers > > > choosing to die and thus continue to "follow Maharishi" > > > than they would be having them "get back in the saddle" > > > and "date others." > > > > > > Sure, one can make all sorts of noises about these > > > policies being intended to "protect the purity of the > > > teaching," and I'm sure a few TBs here will do so in > > > response to this post, on cue. But even if that were > > > true, doesn't it imply that "the teaching" is in NEED > > > of "protecting?" What about the much-vaunted idea of > > > "invincibility" surrounding this "highest teaching?" > > > > > > Me, I think a more real-world, feet-on-the-ground > > > interpretation of these policies is more along the > > > lines of, "Yes, we have nothing more to offer you in > > > terms of 'knowledge' or helping you along your spirit- > > > ual path. We got nuthin'. All we can do is parrot the > > > stuff that Maharishi said. But you should consider that > > > "enough," the way we do. Instead of looking into real, > > > live teachers who might be able to say something new, > > > you should stick with us as we say the same old same > > > old over and over and over. You should stick things out > > > with the parroted words of a dead guy for the rest of > > > your lives the way that we do. That's what a *real* > > > disciple would do to honor their dead husb...uh... > > > we mean spiritual master. And if you don't, we don't > > > want you around." > > > > > From my understanding, Maharishi wrote Bevan Morris into his Will... > > In this way, it seems that Bevan will keep the structure of the movement in > > the West, intact...as there would be a tendency for the finances to be in > > India... > > So, Bevan is in charge of the movement policies...and the buck stops with > > him. > > so, if you would have any sway with Bevan, or could come to Fairfield, and > > offer an alternative to what you percieve, that would be something... > > Not sure if those things are in the cards, though? > > > > R. > > > I heard this from someone who saw the Will... > So, Maharishi was smart to have someone in place to keep the movement going > in the West, and Bevan seems to be channeling Maharishi's desire, for > physical structures for large group meditations, and for structures for > people who wish to recede from the world, bramacharya types, and for the > Brahman types who wish to recite the Vedas, and perform yagyas... > So, in this way, Maharishi insured the continuation of the technques he > promoted and for the wisdom of the Vedas to remain in some structure both in > India and in the West... > This was his goal when he first started to teach... > > R. >
