Beautifully stated !! I always prided myself on being an individual. But around Amma there's lot of drama people want to be close to her proximity, in power positions or would like to sing with the Swamis, it is nothing new and gets repeated over and over again. I did get bitten by this bug from time to time but Amma showed me that the real action was inside of me, not outside and not that happens in close proximity to her.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@...> wrote: > > What is a saint, liberate or realized one? It has nothing to do with relative things, actions, styles, behaviors, words, clothes, ashrams, number of followers, smiles, knowledge. They are that silence, stillness, wholeness. Period. Nothing more nothing less. It would appear (and appearances can be misleading) that when people obsess about physical proximity, interactions, being close to, being a favored one, being in or towards an imaginary inner circle to a realized one, the joke is on them, they are missing the point. They have missed the whole thing. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" whynotnow7@ wrote: > > > > "the "let-me-tell-you-[how-]close-I was-to Maharishi" rap that seems to be hard wired into these guys." > > > > Funny how both sides of the coin exhibit this conceit. There are a couple of our chums here on FFL who are often making the distinction that they were TM teachers and/or knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew Guru Dev, and therefore these Maharishi critics know exactly what is wronger and worser and badder and fakier about MMY than anyone else, and that their opinions carry more weight because of this extra most special relationship with the TM Gurus. Oddly enough the initials of these two spell "TV" and they have about as much credibility as many of the programs shown on that medium. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfreak@> wrote: > > > > > > Yep, he ran a bunch of that on me as well....the "let-me-tell-you-close-I was-to Maharishi" rap that seems to be hard wired into these guys. He even felt compelled to tell me that he was on the plane with M's body back to India. So there! I heard a load of that a few weeks ago from another guy, at whose house Judith Bourque was staying. (By the way, this guy now claims that he knew about the sexual activities of M all along, but that it's A-OK with him since he's Maharishi after all, who can do no wrong! But that's another story for another time.) > > > > > > Like you, I was surprised and, truth be told, probably flattered that I received a long e-mail back from him a few hours after he received my own long winded rant. > > > > > > His tone was respectful, but he did say that he had no interest whatsoever in the topics presented in the David Wants To Fly film, that his only interest was in continuing his teaching. That (and several other comments) led me to write another long response where, among other things, I asked "why, if you have no interest in the film, did you agree to get up in front of a roomful of MUM students to discuss this film that you have no interest in?" > > > > > > Back and forth it went but the last communication from him was a simple "I agree with much of what you say." I may be delusional but I thought perhaps a door had been opened, if only a crack. > > > > > > Man, it so great to have you writing here again Curtis! > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey Joe > > > > > > > > That is really cool that you have had some more back and forth with Bob. I can remember when I too believed that any problem in the movement could be faced and solved. It comes from a deep conviction in the goodness of it all and it is hard not to root for the guy. > > > > > > > > But alas some of the basic premises are flawed, this building was constructed on sand. Life's tragi-comedy played out for all to see on the mighty Youtube. I could see Bob referring to his years in the movement, his proximity to Maharishi, even quoting how Maharishi praised him for being sincere which in the old days was more than enough for us to turn our intellect Vita-Mixers off for an evening of imputing the "newest thinking" unimpeded with the speed bumps of "you're just making this shit up as you go along aren't you?" > > > > > > > > And the loser might well be poor innocent little TM whose value gets lost by dressing her up Jonbenet Ramsey style and making her sing about being a cowboy sweetheart and will make you all enlightened up if you faithfully do it. So enlightened that NATURE itself (wink wink nudge nudge coughsGOD) will support you. As my MIU diploma says the graduates' impulses of desire will be supported by ALL the laws of nature. And all the puppy dog tails will be made of liquorish and the fountains will flow with whatever is the latest micro brew concoction from those Seattle brewers who spend all day thinking "how can we get more of a citrus note in this pilsner?" God love em! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfreak@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dude....me too! I was telling my wife (and also telling Rick) that I was, in a bizarre way, admiring his talk since he was doing what I did for years.....only better! > > > > > > > > > > I always thought I was one of the masters of the 'hey, I'm a regular guy, how weird could this really be" schtick. But Bobby really does have it down cold. > > > > > > > > > > Now, let me say, after having corresponded with him for a few days, I 100% believe that Bob is trying to be honest in his expressed thoughts. He really IS a very nice man, of that I have no doubt. I feel like we could hang and probably have a great time. > > > > > > > > > > He is a guy in process, a guy who clearly cares very much about what he got from MMY, but who clearly knows that there are things that need to be fixed, things that are just plain screwed up about the current TMO. Best to leave it at that for now. > > > > > > > > > > I truly wish him the best. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2011, at 5:10 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brought me right out of lurk-mode! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Welcome back. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Sal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob was always nice to me when I knew him and a great "oh shucks" Jerry style movement spokesperson. But he has some facts wrong. He claims in this section that I started a group called TM-EX. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mexX2Q3-giY&NR=1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only did I not start the group, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only did he get that wrong, Curtis, he contradicted > > > > > > > himself. First he stated you "started" the group 30 years > > > > > > > ago~~when you were pretty much just starting your > > > > > > > TM career~~and then he mentioned 1985 as some kind > > > > > > > of seminal year, which was still well before you had left > > > > > > > the TMO, correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah he got the dates wrong but it was a long time ago. I was still teaching in 85, I left in 89 I think. Later in one of the videos he basically says all the dissenters were around 75 and that they had all used too many drugs! Of course to these MIU kids all these dates might as well be 1963! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I purposely spoke as an individual separate from that handful of people involved with that name because some of them were suing the movement and I felt it would hurt the credibility of my criticism of the movement. The reason my name got associated with them is because I came to an event they were holding in protest of a flying course in DC to be interviewed by the Washington City Paper. Although we shared some of the same criticisms of the movement, our interest in what we considered to be the most important issues was very different. Some of them believed that they had been psychologically harmed by TM which I did not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although I doubt it was malicious towards me on Bob's part, the inclusion of the detail of my full name lent a specific credibility to his statements which is undeserved in this case. Like most fulltime people Bob seems unaware of what guys like me are specifically criticizing in the movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also disagree with his later assertion that Judith's book doesn't have any corroborating details. It has many. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think he seriously compromised whatever credibility > > > > > > > he might have had on this one, when he basically > > > > > > > said he didn't believe anything in the book, without > > > > > > > having read it. He didn't actually say whether or > > > > > > > not he'd read it, but I'll bet $$ that he didn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That was basically the jist of the whole talk, IMO~~ > > > > > > > simply either avoid answering the question, or claim > > > > > > > you didn't know. It happened over and over, with the > > > > > > > stories about MMY's relatives, the dome policy with > > > > > > > regard to other teachers, censorship, and just about > > > > > > > anything else he wasn't comfortable dealing with. > > > > > > > I didn't sense any overt hostility~~he was quite friendly~~ > > > > > > > but I didn't sense either any desire to clear the air and > > > > > > > deal honestly from now on. Basically what I heard seemed > > > > > > > to be more of the same old stuff. I wanted to listen to > > > > > > > as many of the videos as I could before commenting, and I found most > > > > > > > of it to be, once again, a fascinating exercise in dissembling. > > > > > > > He says he's on Purusha and doesn't live in FF and > > > > > > > therefore isn't familiar with MUM or the rules. Then, > > > > > > > why ask him to get up there and answer questions, many > > > > > > > of which are going to be about those things he says he > > > > > > > knows nothing about? (All the while claiming vast, 40-year > > > > > > > experience with the TMO.) But really, he lost me from > > > > > > > the moment I opened the first video, #3, when his > > > > > > > first question came from someone who addressed him as > > > > > > > "doctor." Groan~~not *that* again! What's he a doctor > > > > > > > of, dissimulation? And what kind of course-work did > > > > > > > he do for his doctorate? Let me guess... > > > > > > > > > > > > All good points. It was movement rope-a-dope. I was fascinated because I used to do the same thing but not quite as well (he has had more practice!) He is unaware that he is not satisfying the questioners and is relying on his absolute confidence and conviction and his stating his intention to be open.(without needing to be so) It is all so well intentioned and earnest that it is a bit touching to see him get chewed up by those crusty Euro-students. It was like seeing a boxer from another era, past his prime, getting his lights punched out. I kinda felt for the guy. I cheered against him when he tried to roll Judith, but cheered for him when he wasn't buying that anyone has hovered. Perhaps the lamest point was the attempt at self-effacing humor that he was "old" at age 60 so he couldn't remember the questions. He must have felt how old he was in that room full of those wipper-snappers! But it isn't that he is old, it is that he is a square. He really can't relate to the kids on a level beyond schtick. They knew he wasn't really leveling with them and he knew they knew. I was riveted on all the videos, this was epistemological theater, a drama of earnest confidence against a tsunami wall of internet savvy WTF!!!served up through the youthful beards and the natural pompous piercing lances of youth. Those kids will be just fine and must have had a great laugh about the things gramps tried to lay on them back in their high-bandwidth cyber-dorms. And then some lusty banging doing all the things that Bob gave up so he couldn't even imagine that Maharishi had more in common with them then with him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
