[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@...> wrote:
>
> On Jun 27, 2011, at 3:09 PM, maskedzebra wrote:
> 
> > I am, however, going to ask you to slow down on the tour preparations. 
> > That's a pretty big move for this willed introvert (once exuberant 
> > performer).
> 
> Never mind the tour, mz~~could you just do another
> helicopter drop?  That was one of the coolest sights
> I've ever seen on the MUM campus.  That was real,
> man.  It's definitely high time for a repeat.

RESPONSE: Yeah, it was inspired (came out of UC, remember). Only trouble was 
that, as I remember, the letters were dropped not exactly when everyone was 
emerging from the Domes, but a little before then. This meant the event was not 
timed perfectly, and even that much of what was dropped was scooped up before 
(a clarion call from the enlightened man) could be read—and the TM reformation 
put into motion. But Beatle music was blasting loudly, and it was one moment 
that seemed to be breaking into the mind-locked set in the TMO. I was not up 
there in the helicopter, however—I left that to two of my top disciples (by the 
way, even though I was, I suppose, a cult leader, everyone had total mental 
freedom to THINK WHATEVER THEY WISHED AND ACT HOWEVER THEY SAW FIT [see how 
defensive an ex-UC guy can get? Take it easy, MZ]. But upon hearing about the 
event, there was a kind of burst of happy energy that was still resonating—let 
me, try it, Sal:—through the universe!

But as for a much wished-for repeat, just on principle I would never (and did 
not when enlightened) repeat anything I did. We'd have to come up with 
something else. And besides, the sense of silent defeatedness inside the 
TMO—unrecognized, denied as it is—is in a pretty advanced state these days—even 
as I notice that scientific studies touting TM for reducing tension continue to 
be published. Defeatedness here means: no chance of enlightenment, no chance of 
inner permanent happiness, no hovering, no reduction in the inward neurotic 
existential tension of being a human being, no visible 'Support of Nature' 
(although that certainly WAS once there), no sense of spiritual romance; no 
expectation of a wonderful breakthrough in one's spiritual progress, no 
innocent enthusiasm for TM, growing embarrassment about the personal reputation 
of Maharishi; faith as a substitute for experience—I am sure you are as 
familiar with all this as I am, Sal.

There's not the same uptight, repressed, trance-like context to arouse and 
provoke as there was back there in 1983. I had expected the helicopter (and the 
Beatle music) to create a space for a different kind of initiation. Making 
Things Personal. But I must get a grip here, Sal—or I am likely to go off.

When I came up with the helicopter drop-off idea, I was still in love with 
Maharishi, and convinced that the Movement only had to become the beneficiary 
of my enlightenment. Then we really could go ahead and change the world. 
(Because of the integration of West and East.) Me and the people who were with 
me (mostly initiators loyal to MMY) had created out own spiritual context 
inside the universe, and we were familiar with that universe. It was just the 
TM universe with a difference: The personal side of reality fused with the 
impersonal side. Of course in the end in the most profound sense, even this was 
BS. As I had to discover the hard way.

By the way, Maharishi held off—for 6 years—putting any kind of obstacle in my 
way, as I continued to do my Western enlightenment thing. Then under the 
imperative of the law, he was forced to show his hand—and, I believe against 
his will, he refused to endorse my enlightenment.

Have I gone on too long here, Sal? Gotta watch that unconscious narcissism. For 
me, there at MUM, THERE'S NOTHING TO STRIKE AT ANYMORE. It's not as if the 
universe is threatened to be taken over by Bevan—but at one time, in my 
experience at least, it seemed that MMY and TM and the TMO WAS going to take 
over the universe. And that helicopter drop-off with the Beatle music blaring 
was my attempt to infuse soul into this cosmic take-over—before it was too late.

I guess, from what you say here, you were THERE?

I was pretty goddamn provocative and fearless in those days. But yes, this was 
one of the better ideas I had—but I was, believe it or not, still in love with 
Maharishi and certain he, secretly, approved of my carrying out this act of 
celebratory confrontation of his moribund Movement.
> 
> > But if you can guarantee the cash up front, I might consider it.
> 
> Now you're talking like a true TMer!  Forget mantras, 
> we *know* what's important, right?

RESPONSE: Look, Sal, the money is going to have to be VERY GOOD indeed to yank 
me out of my forced seclusion. But yes, the matter of how much money is offered 
up front and guaranteed, this will be the determinative in whether I give the 
green light to Bob or not. Money is a kind of poetry as one American writer 
said. But then Lady Gaga says: "I hate money!"—and I like Gaga better than that 
poet. Maharishi, well, he had a metaphysical obsession with money, as if 
something that could almost provide personal immortality. Maharishi, at some 
level, I believe was ONLY about money. Money understood in the most recondite 
and esoteric way. The sublimated presence of God.
> 
> > But in the meantime let me do a Novena on it, and then pay for a Yagya to 
> > be done by the sages in India. I'll put in a fast and some silence while 
> > I'm at it. And, I promise you,  DO MY PROGRAM.
> 
> Aren't you forgetting the tarot cards and salt over
> the shoulder?

RESPONSE: Sounds like you mocking my ritualisms to get the gods on my side. I 
would never consider tarot cards—that's going over the line, Sal. Spiritualism 
and all that: even Maharishi disapproved of this—and said so in his Science of 
Being. Stick with the Novena and the Yagya I think. Knock off the rest. Oh, by 
the way, Sal, could you contribute to the fund to get those Hindu guys to do 
that MZ Tour yagya? Don't bother letting me know; you can just tell my manager: 
Bob. (And I haven't even met him!—Ah, the lure of fame.)

> > I've getting a little nervous that well before the week is out, I will find 
> > myself approaching twelve o'clock (50 posts), and therefore will leave many 
> > of my dear readers frustrated—and imperilled by their ignorance.
> 
> mz, that is thoughtful of you to consider your many
> devoted readers here~~but, as the song says, if
> you post out early, well...WE WILL SURVIVE.

RESPONSE: That threat, it is designed to force people into realizing just what 
it would be like for me to, as you say, "post out early". The loss, I mean. 
Seriously, Sal, it has been quite an amazing experience posting on this blog. I 
haven't (I've already said this somewhere else here) been hooked on a context 
like I am here since I was certain Maharishi and TM were better than the Second 
Coming.—I mean it doesn't really approach that; but it seems to be a little 
like it—I mean in the sense of intimacy and familiarity with persons who, 
somehow (now more unconsciously I must suppose), have been part of the same 
dream and then disillusionment. But inside the dream still carries with it some 
unresolved, unarticulated meaning—and posting here gets to remind me of that 
dream, and its lasting effect on all of us. Have I suddenly become too 
credulous and sentimental here, Sal? I hope not. No, SOMETHING REAL IS HERE ON 
THIS BLOG. I am grateful to Rick for inviting me to post—obviously much more so 
than when I first received his invitation.
> 
> 
> > (Yes, you are right: this means I WILL continue to post.
> 
> Whew.

RESPONSE: Please tell me that "Whew" was non-ironic, Sal. Or if it WAS ironic, 
it was ironic to conceal how seriously traumatized you were at the thought of 
the precipitate exit of MZ.
> 
> > Reason? It's that CurtisDeltaBlues fella—if he weren't on this blog I never 
> > even would have begun to post—let alone be persuaded to stay with it for a 
> > while longer. I like that guy, even though I only know him from his 
> > posts—and his music via video.)
> 
> Curtis is the real deal.

RESPONSE: Being a Canadian, I have had (except inside the Movement) limited 
contact with Americans (although there were quite a number who joined up after 
I first hit Fairfield in the summer of 1982). But there is SOMETHING about 
Curtis that seems solid, honest, strong, and true—not to say wonderfully 
intelligent and funny and wise. Now if HE told me he went into Unity 
Consciousness (I mean sometime in the immediate future) I think I would have to 
reconsider—and maybe give it another try—under his tutelage.
> 
> > But, who knows why? you have decided to put the welcome mat out for me, and 
> > believe me, I appreciate it. I can keep my stiletto in my pocket (only used 
> > for defensive purposes of course) when writing to you. No tricky 
> > stick-handling—or hard body-checks.
> > 
> > Yeah, that Maharishi guy, he was SOMETHING ELSE. No one yet has defined him 
> > in terms of how he appears in eternity (you know, at the level of the 
> > actual: where things get DONE in creation)—like what kind of greeting he 
> > got when he went through his dying. No doubt about it, the shrewdest, most 
> > hardball, brilliant (in more than an intellectual sense), slyly 
> > egotistical, beautiful, seductive human being for two thousand years.
> 
> Yes, MMY and Jesus~~sooner or later their 
> names will almost certainly become interchangeable.

RESPONSE: Well, all kidding aside, Sal; I think you right. Only in the case of 
MMY, he is the anti-Jesus. A beguiling beyond all reckoning IMITATION of the 
real thing (Jesus). But that guy Jesus WhereTF IS he? Not to be found (by any 
of my metaphysical rummaging around the universe, anyway). Thus (since I was 
born anyhow) only MMY. Now that he's dead (and gradually acquiring the odour of 
disgrace) looks as if we are entirely here in the universe ON OUR OWN. There 
ain't no guideposts—spiritually: I think that's the word. It was (I speak for 
myself) either Maharishi or it was nothing. And for now I am left with the 
nothing—except I can imagine and project what it must have been like when 
Francis and Teresa walked the earth. The Church was real then—that is, God, 
made it ontologically possible to know that He had an organ of revelation and 
teaching: it was the Church. Blah blah blah.

His Church, well he has abandoned it, hasn't it?

Private belief inserted there; would never try to ARGUE for the truth of this 
assertion. It's just fake nostalgia I guess. Because in reading Catholic 
philosophers—like Aquinas—I find myself intuiting the cosmos as they 
experienced it—I sort of read this off of their writing.

It's not the universe you and I were born into. Which makes Gaga more relevant 
somehow than any would-be Catholic saint nowadays (I don't think there are any. 
God doesn't make saints anymore. He makes Maharishis.).

Oh dear, Sal; you must forgive me. I wish I had the helicopter faith still 
inside me. But here I am riding my favourite little hobbyhorse (posthumous 
Catholicism). I must stop.
> 
> 
> > And more stage presence than anyone other than Jesus. But for all this, not 
> > a good man, I think. Not, then, loved by God (wherever he is, whatever he's 
> > doing). But so far, it seems, my life has pretty much been all about 
> > him—and then getting the hate on for him. The best proof of God it seems to 
> > me (in this era at least: since we were born) is the very fact of the 
> > existence of someone like Maharishi, for, like no one else could—or ever 
> > did since Christ—he made you feel: "This is It!"—he gave me (and you I must 
> > believe)—at least in the beginning—the best version of what could be the 
> > TRUTH—measured by EXPERIENCE—that was possible. Once he went down (sort of 
> > disgracing himself at the end: becoming slightly mad and touched) then 
> > there was no one. All of us former initiators are living in the negative or 
> > ambivalent (or for some, positive) legacy of Maharishi. We can't help it. 
> > It sets us apart from the rest of humanity. A different form I guess of the 
> > mark of the beast. To try on another metaphor.
> > 
> > About that Turq guy, i am sure he'll put me on my guard soon enough, but 
> > given your tacit warning, I think he must be doing a rope-a-dope, because 
> > but so far at least, I don't get the feeling he is about to surprise me 
> > with a fast uppercut. No blows landed so far. But, based upon your implicit 
> > estimation of him, I'll be watching for the knock-out punch.
> 
> Turq is the real deal too~~he always saves his best
> for when you're not looking for it. 

RESPONSE: You are about the third person who has warned me about the formidable 
and dangerous (if he should challenge you) Turq, whereas I, in sizing him up 
from his posts in response to me, have found him unthreatening. But obviously I 
have formed  false judgment of his powers and his integrity. I will be on my 
guard so that I do not—after this (and after Bob's Cassandra-like concern—after 
reading that overwrought post of yesterday to Ravi) underestimate my foe.  
> 
> Sal

RESPONSE: Thanks, Sal! Something about writing into you got me going. It was 
good.
>