I believe that there is an important distinction between agenda and point of view. If David is to be believed about his initial interest in the project, he did not come in with an agenda to make the movement look bad. Quite the opposite, he liked his TM practice and admired David Lynch. What developed through his project was something that distinguishes this kind of work from a piece on 60 minutes, his own POV which then shaped how he edited the piece. It is your POV that would shape a documentary with the balance that there is more positive than negative in a documentary about Maharishi and his movement. But that was not the conclusion he came to for himself if we are to believe the second hand reports about the film. (I am open to the idea that when I see it, I might declare it balanced according to my own POV.)
You and I, Mark, Robin and many others had the experience of falling in love with Maharishi the person. I don't think David had this experience. So it is unlikely that he would take Mark's positive description of his time with Maharishi with the same weight we might. And then again we will value his experiences very differently according to our POV and supporting belief structure. Having sent my own experiences with Maharishi through my updated epistemological sausage grinder, I can both relate to Mark's personal experiences around Maharishi while not giving them the same weight in their being more of a description of reality, than a compelling subjective experience that has more to do with Mark than Maharishi. While being sympathetic concerning the compelling nature of these experiences, I may have come to different conclusions about what they ultimately mean in our quest to understand life. But a good documentary is not only judged by how much it conforms to an idea of balance. Give me a camera crew and I will create an advocacy piece for my own POV and make it as compelling as possible while trying to stay within ethical bounds of not deliberately misleading the viewer. And the viewer and judge if the POV shared is a compelling case or is just a skewed view. I trust a piece more that lets me in on the director's POV rather than a doc whose bias is either not explicit, or worse yet, when the director's bias is unknown to themselves. We also have the conflicting mixed bag that presents itself when we get into reporting on something as complex as Maharishi and his minions. Having spent some time with the press who tried to get the story as David did, I can report that the movement presents itself as vain, fey, pompous, deluded and creepily unaware that its bullshit PR is not flying to outsiders trying to get the story right. I heard time and time again that the story they were trying to tell got turned into the resistance of the movement to their telling it objectively. And the switch from Goulab Jamin sweet to the raging Bevan was often swift and sometimes scary. Without an insider's view that we shared, the movement looks like any other self important group who claims exclusive possession of the highest teaching. And I really can't argue with them because I suspect they are right. My enjoyment of TM and my affection for Maharishi does not mean that I am any closer to understanding the reality of life than someone who does not share my personal history. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@...> wrote: > > David, who made the film, definitely had an agenda. He interviewed me by > phone. I emphasized repeatedly that he should tell the whole story, and that > an honest telling would contain more positive than negative. But it appears > that he just wanted to do a hatchet job. So he interviewed Mark for two > hours, and chose something Mark said during those two hours that sounds > negative. > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of tedadams108 > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:08 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals > > > > > > > Rick, > > You're correct, I just didn't want to go on memory regarding > any particular thing Mark said. I watched the film late at > night, it's in german, and I was not focused only on what > Mark said. If I knew this issue regarding the sandals was going > to come up today I would have paid more attention. Fortunately > in his response, Mark does talk about some of the things he > said, albeit with a different slant than what comes out in the > film. If you read Mark's post it's clear that unlike your > impression that Mark never said anything bad about Maharishi, > that in the film several negative things are said. Granted > Mark's point about a paradox requires some positive points be > made. Anyone who views the film will not debate how Maharishi > was portrayed by Mark. There seems to be a tendency for people > on here to make complicated and pick apart something that > was intended to be simple. In this case, simply..... > > 1. Mark said very negative things about Maharishi. > 2. Mark claims that the sandals worn by Maharishi > have a magical quality. (IMO to enhance their marketability.) > 3. Paradox aside, appeared contradictory. > > To speak ill of someone then to turn around and try to profit > from the man's sandals is unsettling at best. Money often causes > one to compromise principles. I think that may be the case here. > > If the shoe (sandal) fits....... > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> ] > > On Behalf Of tedadams108 > > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:11 AM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do have compassion for Mark or anyone in financial difficulties. > > I have been observing the comments on Fairfield Life for many > > years but until today was not inspired to post one of my own. > > For some reason it was hard for me to resist pointing out the > > hypocrisy since I had just seen the film. Perhaps I was a little > > "colorful" with my words, but they pale in comparison to the words > > used in the interview. Obviously there are people on here that > > fit either into the pro-TM camp or the anti-TM camp. I apparently hit > > a nerve. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the facts > > and people can spin them the way they want. Interestingly, those > > who have an issue with my post are not addressing it's main point, > > rather my mention of being compassionate or acknowledging that > > many have enjoyed financial success and have attributed it to their > > TM practice. The main point is not debatable. > > > > The main reason it's not debatable is that you don't trust your memory > well > > enough to tell us what Mark said, so we can't very well debate something > we > > know nothing about. > > > > > > _____ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3776 - Release Date: 07/20/11 >
