--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > WNN: Robin, I find my thinking pretty close to nablus's, in that there is no > regret > or anything else except peacefulness regarding how Maharishi's life played out > with regard to what he did. > > RESPONSE: I understand this perspective, whynotnow. I would just say at the > outset that how you hold this perspective is somewhat other than how nablus > holds this same perspective. Now this may be because he is a teacher of TM (I > assume he is, right?), and therefore he has experienced Maharishi and TM from > yet another perspective other than the one which governs your own experience. > But just to say it simply: nablus wants to go into battle on behalf of > Maharishi; and his super-objective is always to repel any criticism of > Maharishi, and essentially to maintain that if any of us have some doubts > about the final integrity of Maharishi, the fault is in us. But in the way > he argues for this point of view, he betrays a certain (my opinion only mind > you) guard dog mentality, as if he doesn't even care whether reality or his > experience really supports his argument on behalf of Maharishi; he has take > it as an article of faith that Maharishi, no matter what, must be defended at > all costs, no matter whether what is said about Maharishi is true or not.
> > Now I admire the devotion of nablus to Maharishi, and in a sense his posture > is in principle as valid as that of those who have determined that > Maharishi's behaviouron a wide range of issueswarrants examination and even > censure. You seem to hold to your position with a certain equanimity and > serenity, whereasunless I am mistaken in thisnablus seems ready to tear to > pieces anyone who he believes commits an act of desecration by making > Maharishi something less than the perfect Master. ** I think nablus expresses himself very directly, but I don't detect malice or insecurity. As for a defense to the death of Maharishi, it is more like using Maharishi as perfectly symbolic of reality; perfect universal synchronicity. That is a personal feeling of his that is a personal choice. Maharishi talks about that in terms of personal vs. impersonal God. He says it is easier to establish a relationship with a personal representation of God. He wasn't talking about himself, though I am sure many people think of him as more divine than human, and use his life, his Being as an inspiration. I appreciate Maharishi's writing and recordings, and very occasionally I remember that he allowed me to completely transform my life, through this little word that was never even written down or spoken, that I thought every day for 35 years. Stranger than fiction. > > You have, according to your own judgment, reaped the advantages of TM and > therefore of what Maharishi brought to the West. And I am glad that your > experience of doing TM has resulted in such a positive, such an unequivocally > positive, perspective (on TM and Maharishi). I understand this perspective, > especially how you explain it here in this post. ** Yes, and thank you for leaving out the TMO in the above equation. > > WNN: I was not a TM teacher, nor did I ever see him in person. However > Maharishi's > goal of bringing a completely useful technique for self discovery to me, > worked > perfectly (albeit on the backs of the TM teachers). > > RESPONSE: It makes all the difference in the world to have known Maharishi > personally and moreover to have become a teacher of TM and actually initiated > persons into TM. This utterly alters the context of one's experience. There > is a bigger difference (in my mind) between a meditator and an initiator than > there is between a non-meditator and a meditator. At least in making this > assertion I am getting at a real and substantial truth. **With regard to Maharishi, yes, I am sure it makes a lot of difference. In retrospect, I am glad my weirdness meter pegged, and my angels led me away every time I got too close to him. Paradoxically, although Maharishi's techniques were perfect for me to attain my life goals, his organization definitely was not. > > Maharishi was for those of us who knew and loved and served him, a Christ. We > were his more than 12 disciples. And the way he conveyed how we were to trust > and adore him left no room for doubt, for hedging our bets: he was a human > being who embodied and expressed the whole truth about creation. To have any > thoughts contrary to this was completely incompatible with even being a TM > teacher in the first place. No, whynotnow, to become an initiatorat least > before 1976was to enter into an experience and process which had the > inevitable effect of knowingas one knew nothing elsethat Maharishi was the > most beautiful and wise and loving and strong human being in our lifetime. He > made sure, whynotnow, that we could find no fault in himat least in his > public persona. He was a dazzingly and incredible personality, whose every > movement and gesture seemed to give us the physical example and proof of what > enlightenment must be. > > For me, whynotnow, TMthe experience of transcendingwas inextricably bound > up with the person and integrity of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I know this is not > the case for many meditatorsand even teacherswho continue to value his > technique. And obviously this is what is true for you too: you separate, even > in holding Maharishi to be a true Master, the practice of TM from the human > being Maharishi. And I would not wish to dissuade you (I couldn't anyway) > from this point of view. ** I just want to break in here and say that I no longer do TM or the TM Sidhis techniques. I do however continue to transcend constantly. > I only say for myself that my experiences of doing TM (and what was added to > TM) were always fused perfectly with the person Maharishi. And I could never > conceive of separating them out one from the other. ** Why? That seems absurd. And I continue to believe that metaphysically this is the case. This is an original idea, of courseand I won't attempt to defend its reasonableness herebut my deepest intuition is: whatever Maharishi was (and is), so goes Transcendental Meditation. ** I can see this in terms of the personal imprint that Maharishi had on the technique, much as Edison did to the first applications of electricity. Metaphysically though? > A startling and seemingly strange notion perhaps, but for me the very > simplest and most inspired idea that I have about TM and Maharishi. If > Maharishi could be corrupt, then it means that TM has this same capacity to > corrupt (although I don't say TM will corrupt the person along the lines of > how Maharishi allegedly was corruptor became corrupt; no, I rather say: TM > is not finally a reliable and trustworthy methodology for self-improvement. ** Because Maharishi was not in fact perfect, TM has the capacity to corrupt? Robin, what is this? TM stands well away from any personal issues that Maharishi had. This ominous sounding linkage between the two makes no sense. > No matter what astonishing changes first begin to take place in one's > lifeand of course no matter what heavenly bliss and ecstasy TM brings (and > it has brought a lot of this to hundreds of thousands of persons I am sure)). ** I went through a great and long period of disillusionment with TM, and the technique more often than not was experienced as a jumble of thoughts. > > WNN: So it depends whether you worked for the company, or simply used their > services. > As a consumer, it was a good deal, especially work/study, where I could earn > techniques as a trade for learning a vocation, especially in my mid-20's when > I > didn't know anything anyway. > > RESPONSE: I understand you here, and of course there is nothing that could be > said against any of this. > > WNN: My consideration for TTC lasted as long as my 'where's the beef?' moment > did > (there wasn't any), and that was it. > > RESPONSE: Yes, certainly TM delivered the goods. Experientially. My final > assessment however was: Experiences under TM do not result in something that > is finally real. In other words, the experience of TM appears to absolutely > validate the practice; its efficacy in producing beautiful experiences must > be the proof of its objective beneficence. Whereas for myself I deem this > very power of TM to precipitate these experiences to be the evidence of its > mystical deceitfulnessas I have yet to encounter a single human being > whoother than seemingly to have experienced something very big and deep to > do with the universe itselfis a more noble, more thoughtful, more humble, > more attractive, more wonderful human being. ** Whoa - hold on there feller - Yes, absolutely true that the direct practice of TM and TM-Sidhis will produce experiences which align pretty closely to CC - the witness, GC - finest relative perception, and UC - oneness predominating. As experiences, those are nice, and all of them together and five bucks gets you a cup of coffee. Jed McKenna, whoever he is, writes that the only way to succeed at any spiritual path is to fail completely. The same way with CC, GC and UC. They can only be experienced for any benefit, once they are fully integrated in our experience, lost as a result of infusion. The benefit to each of those CC, GC and UC things is to subtly coax us into seeing the world in a way that is larger than we thought. But not to make the mistake as I did initially of thinking that this was *the roadmap*. For one thing, having been an artist all of my life, I am predisposed to my vision. Add in a sidhi or two and I am seeing the celestial worlds. Well, lookie here, on my road map, GC comes after CC, so I must be in CC too!! The ego loved that! But then got trumped when reality intruded. > There is such exquisite sadness and frustration in all those who are near the > top of the hierarchy in the TM Movement. Maharishi is the only person whoat > least after say, 30 to 40 yearshad something extraordinary and awesome about > him. But no one who has done TM has ever persuaded me that in the final > analysis they have received what was promised in the experience of doing TM. ** The transformation, and the belief that it has occurred when it hasn't, are both internal conditions. > > But instantly TM got me off drugs, ended my psychedelic paranoia, and brought > an influx of intelligence and grace and stability into my life. For sure. But > after thatincluding my experience being enlightened (which was even more > fabulous than Maharishi said it would beeverything it was implied it would > be in The Science of Being and Art of Living)TM seemed to me to be the most > spectacular illusion. In other words, no matter what experience TM produced, > no matter how profound the changes induced in a person by doing TM, in the > end what happens to the human being is not in accordance with why we were > created. But I must stop here! ** I wish you would have continued. You were building up to something. > > WNN: As *The Guy*, Maharishi, I know him through his techniques, and the BG > 1-6, > which I studied rigorously and underlined meticulously at 23. His videotapes > too. > > RESPONSE: Maharishi is impressive in every way. He was for me. And I sense > the spontaneous and intelligent appreciation you have for him, and his > apparent beneficial effect upon you. I get the sense that you took everything > from Maharishi that was possible to takethat is, while remaining a meditator > not an initiator. ** Yep. > > WNN: I always felt kinda guilty for not adoring Maharishi like everyone else > did. I > had a great admiration for him, but much more for his teacher, Guru Dev. His > facial expressions and posture signify The Transcendent for me, his > synchronicity with galaxies wheeling through space, his love of his fellow > man, > and the embodiment of invincibility, living in the jungle, a great > inspiration. > > RESPONSE: I have quite recently, whynotnow, come to the conclusion that Guru > Dev was almost the entire power and force and grace behind Maharishi and TM. ** Yay! You can get to know him directly too. The line is always open. > I watched that video that nablus postedI had not seen it before. Tremendous > experience: I think GD was a much more significant being than Maharishi was. > In that video he seems brighter and more lit up in creation even than > Maharishi ever was. I won't try to unravel all this now, but I think the > secret of TM and Maharishi isas Maharishi insisted it wasGuru Dev. So I > should, I suppose, take up my beef with *him*, and not his pupil! GD was a > fearsome, confident, and utterly dominating personality and consciousnessas > can be witnessed from that video. ** Completely tender and sweet and radiating love too! > > Thanks very much for your post, whynotnow: I sense nothing tense or strained > in anything you say. It all seems very natural and normal to me. ** My mind generally stays relaxed- I only use it when I have/want to. > As for your friend nablus: well, I consider my disillusionment with Maharishi > to be a more profound and truthful experience than his continued unstinted, > unswerving loyalty and devotion. ** Maharishi was just a guy like any of us, who invented something as useful to the modern age as electricity. > But obviously this a matter of debate. I think I have a feel for Rick much > more than I have for Nablus, and I should, especially after reading your post > here, be more careful in my judgments of what nablus is up to. I am working > on my 'nutter'-ness. Tell him this, please. ** Rick and nablus are both cool. > > Robin > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Good to be corrected, nablusoss1008. I will take your strong objections to > > all > that I have said, as evidence that I have got you wrong somewhere. > > > > Certainly from how you have responded to my post, I need not fear you are in > any doubt about anything you believe. And if I knew how easily and > perfunctorily > you would give me the back of your hand, I might not have risked coming to the > defence of Rick. I am a relative newcomer here at FFL; I don't know you, and I > don't know the background of your relationship with Rick. > > > > I only know that to maintain that the context and reality of Maharishi > > Mahesh > Yogi and Transcendental Meditation is now in 2011 exactly what it always > wassay > compared to 1973seems an implausible proposition. What I sensed, > nablusoss1008 > was that, when you first were in Purushaat the very beginningyou had a > certain > understanding and perception of Maharishi; and that given what has gone down > since then, it seems only reasonable and just that you modify that > understanding > and perception. > > > > It appears to me you are unwilling to let history and reality reflect its > truth inside your own consciousnessas if to say: Everything is on course; > everything is the way it is supposed to be; Maharishi has been true to > himself, > to Guru Dev, and to us. And we are well on our way to heaven on earth. > > > > But inside this assertion I sense some wishful thinking; no: more than > > this: I > sense a strangulation of the truth. I have used your disagreement with Rick to > emphasize this existential fact. You seem extremely fortified in your belief > that there is nothing to regret, to lament, to ponder in what has happened to > Maharishi's Movement, in the failure of Transcendental Meditation to even > approach what its promise was when we first were initiated, and the > deterioration of Maharishi in his latter years, as he revealed that about him > which was not all sweetness and light. > > > > You appear to me to be resisting mightily the reality of things. That you do > so with a sense of utter confidence and serenity seems to me to be a form of > burying your head in the sand. But you have told me that man that you are, > nablusoss1008, and I shall not seek for any other kind of resolution than the > one which is offered up to me in your sharp rebuke here. > > > > I appreciate your answering me so directly and promptly. > > > > Jai Guru Dev > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear nablusoss1008: > > > > > > > > You are a doctrinaire. Rick Archer is staying true to the profoundest of > intuitions that he derived from his association with and self-sacrifice to > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. > > > > > > Let's hope so. I'm glad at least you are so sure about that. > > > > > > > > > All that you say here is a rationalization after the fact. > > > > > > I wish I knew what you are reffering to. What I did was a natural thing. > > > > > > > > > At the height of your devotion to Maharishibefore you knew anything about > his own wanderings from his vows to Guru Dev > > > > > > I beg your pardon, what do you know about Maharish's wows to Guru Dev ? > > > Maharishi dropped the title Bal Brahmarishi already in the 50's. Do preach > your nonsense elswere. > > > > > > > > > you would have never tried to argue as you have here. You are avoiding > going through the honest and powerful ambivalence and disillusionment that > Rick > has > > > > > > What do you know about the "ambivalence and disillisionment" of Rick ? > > > > > > even as Rick still holds Maharishi to be a true Teacher. No, > nablussoss1008: you are trying to find a solution to your own suppressed > confusion and doubt by inventing a whole new dogma. > > > > > > Oh thanks, just what we need here; a closet psychologist. You are talking > nonsense. Please practise your hobbies on someone else. > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile Rick is only confronting us with what we all know is the truth. > Only Ravi, among all of us, is somehow unaccountable in the way we have no > choice about being accountable: that is, understanding Maharishi in all that > he > is and was. > > > > > > And what the freaking do you know about the insights of Ravi ? > > > > > > > > > > Where Rick is raising these questions goes much deeper in comparison to > where you are dismissing his questions and explaining Bevan and Maharishi > away. > I don't expect you to realize what is going on here, nablusso1008, but you are > trying to remake reality and history into something which fits conveniently > with > your determination not to have to pass through the inevitable experience of > facing up to the terrible complexity and contradiction of Maharishi Mahesh > Yogi. > > > > > > I am ? thank you for sharing your wisdom with me. I' fast approaching the > hour of virechana. > > > > > > > > > You are not arguing sincerely, nablusoss1008; and you weaken your case > > > with > the smugness and the unintended irony of the self-righteousness of your > remarks > to Rick. > > > > > > Sorry to hurt your delicate feelings. Rick is used to it, he has received > much harsher words from me during the years. > > > > > > > > > You need to go through your own dark night of the soul, nablusoss1008. And > you haven't. I think Rick has. > > > > > > Your'e a nutter ! > > > > > >
