--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Curtis, I've not commented on this video because I haven't > seen it.
I find it very likely that you have heard many guys holding court like this. One too many probably! I enjoyed reading your take on what I wrote. It just didn't interest me when I first saw the > link to it, and it still doesn't. So what I'm responding > to below is not anything about Peter Wallace himself or > anything he said or even about TM in particular. You > touched on an interesting 'tude that I've seen across > the entire spiritual smorgasbord, and made some points > that I think are worth reinforcing. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > But my Goddamn unconscious tyrant sent me a memo. One that > > I can't refuse, despite the price I pay in euphoria deflation > > over such a string of wonderful tales of encounters with > > special, wonderful people. > > > > So here it is. Too many perfect coincidences in a row with > > the same message as the subtext. And the message is that > > this person, Peter, is the most wonderfully, specially, > > coincidentally acknowledged person by each and every special > > person in his stories without exception. None of them were > > met the way I met Maharishi, each one has a story, worthy > > of standing alone in its magical perfection. Why did he > > have to put them all together? Could he have included even > > one story that sounded like mine? One story that didn't > > have the blessed perfection of a perfectly told story? > > Could he have shown a bit of literary discipline in what > > he was serving us? > > > > OK. If this is how it all really went down, then he is the > > single most magically blessed person I have ever heard about, > > with the ultimate "I hung out with Maharishi before he became > > Donald Trump" tales. > > > > But if you spoke with Maharishi for 6 months and the most > > interesting thing you have to share is how special you were > > in how you were acknowledged by him...no details worthy of > > a person sitting day after day with the guy who was supposed > > to have figured it all out, the guy who had the answers about > > the reality of life, the best you can serve up to us is a cool > > coincidence story about how you knew better than anyone else > > the Maharishi was gunna show up...that is the most important > > words out of your mouth...a story not about his insights into > > reality but how special you were in how you met him... > > > > and all of this served up in a non-affect monotone serving up > > exactly zero of the qualities that might encourage me to see > > how reasonable it is that this is the guy who may be the > > luckiest guy in the world. > > As I said above, I haven't seen the video, but based on > your description above, I've met the guy and heard his > rap before, many times. True, it may not have been Peter > Wallace himself, but I've seen this mindset before, in > many other guys and gals. I call it self importance. > > And you just nailed it. First, the storytelling is just > too polished and bard-like, as if they've not only told > this story to others for years, they've told it to > *themselves* for years, over and over, to remind them- > selves how special they really were, to have been able > to hang out so close to an even more special person. > > Second, it's the consistent pasting together of coinci- > dences or meaningless, unrelated events interpreted as > both meaningful and related. Nothing in these stories > can ever be mundane or random or coincidence; it all > seems to have to be dripping with cosmic importance > and the pre-ordained wonderfulnessitude of it all. > > Third, it's the "It all comes down to me" aspect of the > storytelling that's the tell. Not just in the context of > former followers of spiritual teachers telling stories > about them, but also in the vast canon of spiritual liter- > ature itself. There were chroniclers of spiritual teachers > who managed to tell the story without painting themselves > into every scene. And then there were the vast majority, > who couldn't. There was almost always a "me" element in > the storytelling, presented as if the "me" in question -- > the narrator of the story, after all -- was just as > important and just as special as the spiritual luminary > being spoken of or written about. > > It's been so many years since I was tempted to measure my > own self worth by my proximity to a "special" person that > I forget about this whole 'tude, and how prevalent a > mindset it is in many spiritual communities. Your descrip- > tion reminded me. In a way, I'm thinking that telling these > stories over and over to rapt audiences, possibly embroid- > ering them a little bit more with each telling to make > them better stories, is remarkably like the way Joseph > Campbell assumed myths were written. The self important > myth-creators are just making sure to write themselves > into the myths as prominent characters, that's all. :-) >
