Some really interesting points here Barry. They got me thinking and jogged some memories.
At first I was confused by Jim's attitude that we were personally defective for going all the way with Maharishi back in the day (in the non Bourque-ian sense of the word!) but at the same time accused of lacking in spiritual focus or progress today. Combined with holding Maharishi as a teacher so special we should never goof on him or point out his failings with us somehow remiss in our own path of enlightenment now because we don't follow him, although we were fools when we were following him too much. It is a classic double bind. Then it hit me! This was the philosophy of the "strong" (remember that gem!) meditator or strong sidha at the TM center. This is a continuation of the attitude some sidhas and meditators had who were really into TM and the programs, but for one reason or another would never pull the trigger on becoming a teacher. They sensed the movement's caste system bullshit and rightfully resented it. Plus a lot of these guys had their shit together in "the world" or families so they didn't see us as particularly inspiring. We were constantly coming back from courses with new vocabulary and the latest "whatever" programs that were gunna do it all, fer real, real this time! After ATR or other long rounding we were annoying and worthy of goofing on. But we were the door keepers to their access to courses. And compliance was a key aspect of evaluation along with the alarmingly Nazi "negativity" reading. Or the dreaded "roughness", God can't help you if your file has that word too much. You wont even be able to get another mantra syllable if the "R" word sticks. They were trapped! We had the ability to screw them on going to their next course. And every time we brought back some new program it caused havoc in their family lives. Remember how put out families were to do the sidhis? How much time and money it cost people "in the field"? So they had to kiss ass a bit and go along even though any reference to teachers being bliss-ninnies would get a little too loud and long a laugh. They learned how to play the game enough to get passed through. But there was resentment. So they invented their own version of Maharishi's teaching. It focused on all the 200% bits and action to infuse being, but conveniently left out all the serve the master part, or even putting yourself in a position where Maharishi could direct your evolution program personally. This is the interesting part. It became a virtue and badge of honor to NOT go all the way with Maharishi. They reveled in the brochure level TM, what was served to the public and eschewed any of the stuff he told his fulltimers. We were all full of the other quotes like the diamond for the price of spinach don't waste your life rap or "My mission is to spiritually regenerate the world. Anyone who helps me, I personally will do everything I can for their evolution. Whoever doesn't help me, my attention doesn't go there". We each had our own supporting catch phrases for our level of involvement. And I have to say I never had much affinity with the "partially in" POV because once I decided that Maharishi was DA MAN, I was all in. Each course was another step on the road I wanted to be on. I couldn't understand how someone could appreciate Maharishi as a master of human consciousness, but be suspicious of having the guy give you the full monte. It seemed incongruent to me then, and still does today. But then I was young and it was easy for me to devote my life to his mission rather than whatever shitty entry level job awaited my liberal arts educated young ass! It is a funny blend of credulity and suspicion, as if putting yourself under Maharishi's direction was suspect. It meant you had been, as Jim recently claimed about me, "seduced" by Maharishi. What a fascinating turn of phrase for a guy who Jim believes gave him the keys to his own enlightenment and castigates us for expressing zero reverence towards. It was proof that you were somehow deficient personally that you would allow Maharishi to have such control over you. The cognitive dissonance at play to hold all these things together is amazing to me: 1. Maharishi was a master of human consciousness, but you had to be careful not to let him have control of your personal life. He was both revered and mistrusted. 2.Barry and I were TOO into TM when we were teachers. It is evidence of our personal lack of something. To quote Jim: "so incredibly seduced by Maharishi at one point that you lost any semblance of who you really were" By being fulltime with the so called master, I was going in the opposite direction of evolution and losing myself! 3. But now Barry and I are accused of NOT having any self realization and lacking the fortitude to stick it out now. Damned when we did and damned when we don't! I think you nailed it that our non acceptance of Maharishi as a special guy is taken with a heaping helping of poor intellectual boundaries as a lack of confidence vote on his own awakening. This is a power game of trumped up specialness but we have opted out. We are no longer proud teacher able to lord anything over Jim and now he thinks he can lord his special state over us in payback. All these posts ridiculing people for lack of whatever it is he thinks he has. As if self realization is a prize you can taunt people with. Neener neener neener, I am and you aren't! I have taken plenty of time with Jim for him to make his case both here and by listening to his entire Batgap interview. I conclude that Jim has had some type of shift in his mental functioning that he values. I can appreciate that. I view it as I would if someone said they had an experience of being saved that changed their life positively. But I don't want to hear that this also means that since I am NOT saved that I am deficient in whatever. I really don't. I am fine and having a swimmingly good time. I'm all enlightened up and all saved up for now. And if higher consciousness doesn't manifest itself in something interesting enough to make me go "wow that really did make you more blah blah blah..." then I'm really not interested in hearing that I am lacking in whatever this subjective quality is. My own inner state is fascinating to me and only me. Same for anyone. Our inner states are not fascinating to others, only what we can express from them. Oh yeah, and I think the whole defend Maharishi rap has got to come to an end. If Jim really cared about the guy. he would have put his back into his mission while he still had a pulse. He was a master of convenience for most people, but Barry and I spent the freak'n sleepless nights trying to help the guy when we could have used a few more hands on whatever wacky project just came over the TELEX from Switzerland. It is too little too late to offer up the lip service defend the master routine now. And if I thought Maharishi was right, I would still be doing it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > So what do you consider a cheap shot that I have taken at > > Maharishi? > > While Mr. Self Realized is at it, I'd like him to > produce quotes of mine that he considers "cheap > shots" at Maharishi. > > > I can't think of anything I have said about him that I didn't > > sincerely mean. My shots are carefully considered and not > > cheap at all. > > More important -- and this is I think the thing that > pushes Jimbo's attachment/aversion buttons -- is that > your occasional shots at Maharishi are based on total > equality and a "Prove it" attitude, the very thing he > fears the most. > > Jim's entire approach to spirituality seems to be based > on the premise that "some people are better than others." > (Or, as Orwell put it in Animal Farm, "All animals are > equal, but some are more equal than others." In Jimworld, > the *only* thing that a person needs to do to be revered > as an enlightened being is claim to be one. > > People who hear such claims, in Jimworld, should auto- > matically and without hesitation place the enlightenment > claimant on a higher plane than themselves, treat their > every word as true (or better, Truth), and hang around > them waiting for them to spout sage advice, which they > then accept as Truth and revere with much fawning and > reverence. > > That, IMO, is what he expected to happen when he first > landed in Fairfield Life. To his surprise, shock, and > dismay (followed quickly by angry lashing out and a > tirade of insults and putdowns that has not ceased in > the years since), people treated him like what he was, > Just Another Guy Saying Shit. Nobody (except maybe > Nabby) accepted him as enlightened or self realized. > Nobody revered him. Nobody treated what he wrote as any > more wise or truthful than anything anyone else wrote. > THAT in my opinion is what pissed Jim off the most, and > has him *still* pissed off and carrying around a pimply- > faced-teenager-sized grudge against those who committed > the Ultimate Crime of not treating him the way he wanted > to be treated. > > To Jim, self realization is a kind of "attainment" or > "achievement" that *should be recognized as such*. In > Jimworld, the *only* thing that a person has to do to > be worthy of reverence and awe is claim something about > his or her state of consciousness. The only appropriate > response to such claims is the state of reverence and > awe he was hoping for. Anything less is a "cheap shot," > by lesser beings than himself. > > And that, if I'm not mistaken, is how he'd like Curtis > and Vaj and myself to treat Maharishi. Not gonna happen. > I base my view of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on several things: > 1) the assumption that he was Just Another Guy, no more > important or "highly evolved" than any other, 2) a person > who I sat in rooms with for years and watched him do his > thing (as opposed to never having met him and having > watched only carefully-edited videotapes), 3) someone > who never once *produced* on any of his claims, and 4) > someone who was All Talk, No Walk (a lot like Jim, in > other words). > > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As > Curtis has said, Maharishi never produced any. The best > he could come up with was spurious "science" produced > by True Believers who were wearing the rose-colored > glasses of confirmation bias and reverence for the holy > guy that Jim thinks "appropriate" for such an "advanced > being." Me, I don't buy that *anyone* is "advanced" at > anything until they demonstrate it for me. > > To date, like MMY, Jim has NOT demonstrated anything to > back up his claims that he (and other claimants to the > throne of enlightenmentitudeness) is "special." He seems > to me to be the most ordinary of human beings, someone > who at one point in his life grew tired of being a nobody > and figured out that if he just made a bunch of claims to > gullible people, a certain percentage of them would treat > him as "special," just because he claimed to be. Same with > Ravi. He, too was an absolute nobody until he suckered > Rick in with some parroted spiritual bullshit and a similar > claim to be self realized. > > I think Jim's buttons get so pushed by Vaj, Curtis and me > treating Maharishi as NOT special despite his claims of > being special because it brings up for him a mirror of > what happened *to him* when he tried to run the same act. > People, in Jim's view, just *shouldn't be allowed* to treat > claims as claims, and the people making them as Just Another > Person Making A Claim. Everyone should treat Maharishi as > special, in exactly the same way that everyone should treat > Jim as special. They're special because they say they are, > and that's that. > > <snip> > > You seem proud that you never took the time to spend time > > with the guy and go on his most intensive programs. > > I honestly get the feeling, given the strong anti-intellectual > stance he has displayed on FFL since his arrival here, that > not only has Jim never met the person he wants you to revere, > he never read any of his books, either. I get the feeling > (from the incredible gaps in his knowledge of what Maharishi > actually taught) that the *entire* extent of his "knowledge" > about MMY comes from a few tapes seen on residence courses > or at TM centers. I could be wrong about this (a statement > that we have never and *will* never hear Jim make), but that > is my impression of the guy, and the full extent of his > "experience with Maharishi." > > > But it leads to you having a fantasy bond with your own > > imagination about him. > > Exactly. *Whatever* Jim says about Maharishi is based on his > fantasies about him, combined with (IMO) an attempt to suck > up to other MMY TBs in an attempt to get them to focus on > him and think of him as "special." There just ain't no there > there in his relationship to the man, and never will be now > that he's dead. > > > Your objections to my opinion about him have no basis in who > > he actually was. He is just a made up abstractions based on > > whatever few tapes they let sidhas see. > > And Jim's fantasies about what an "enlightened being" "should" > be. Jim's full of "shoulds." You "should" stop treating MMY > as just another human being, and not believing everything he > said as if it were Truth. You "should" treat him the same way. > > > But I may be wrong. Trot out some "cheap shots" and I'll see > > if I can justify them. > > And do the same for me. And you lurkers -- don't let him > get away with NOT doing this. If this is Just Another Example > Of A Vague Jim Putdown, with nothing to back it up, let's > expose that as what it is, shall we? If he honestly believes > that Curtis (or I) have made "cheap shots" at MMY on this > forum, demand that 1) he repost the quotes he feels fall into > that category, and 2) clarify why he considers them "cheap > shots." > > Charlatans exist because they sucker people into treating > them as "special," based on nothing more than what they say > about themselves. Jim thinks this approach to those who > claim higher states of consciousness is a Good Thing. I don't. > I think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary > proof. To date, Jim Flanegin has produced not only zero > evidence that he is as "special" as he wants people to > believe he is, he's demonstrated how non-special he really is. >
