Just looking at the posts on FFL I see it is the "same ol' same ol'" IOW people stuck in the past with little interest in the present or future. I downloaded the video and got a little sick of the naive descriptions and TM buzzwords. Many of the "saints" probably have about the same level of experience of some of the members here. After all we're mainly a bunch of old farts who have been practicing some form of sadhana for years (TM or otherwise) and "saints" are about the same thing. But ya know some folks still believe in Superman.
On 09/18/2011 05:15 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > Curtis, I've not commented on this video because I haven't > seen it. 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. :-) > > >
