--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Darling Obbajeeba, > > I can't get rid of the hate in my heart, so please bear with me while I > attack you without cause. > > Did you watch Ellen Degeneres open that David Lynch Foundation event? And did > you read Bob Price's wife's post attempting to persuade Emily to start > Transcendental Meditation? And do you recall when TM for you was the best > thing goingbefore the 1980's, that is? (By the way, I am going to assume you > are an initiator; if you are not then some of my comments here are not, for > you, completely on the mark.) > > No one could see anything about Ellen Degeneres (or for that matter in Martin > Scorsese's comments) or in 'Mrs. Price's' commentary which would imply any > kind of influence over their own individualism and originality. TM is the > most subtle and efficacious technique there is to produce a blissful > experience, and the most subtle kind of changesalmost immediatelyin one's > personal life. If you listen to Ellen read what Mrs. Price says in her post, > you realize that TM, mechanically and efficaciously considered, beats any > other spiritual technique in existenceI would even say (from an Eastern > point of view) ever. The fact that in doing TM one does not change anything > about oneself in terms of one's own values, beliefs, or life styleand Ellen > when she extolled the benefits of TM was as convincing and persuasive as > anyone could belikewise when 'Mrs Price' wrote her letter to Emilyis > something without precedent. There is no 'technique' that I know of which is > not wedded to some belief system in the very practising of that technique. > Not so TM. > > Transcendental Meditation, therefore, in my opinion, obbajeeba, is sui > generis, intrinsically unique, like nothing else. Doing TM does not resemble > doing anything else. There isthis is my argument based upon empirical > evidenceabsolutely no cross-pollination with any other technique or forms of > meditation. In fact, I contend that whatever alternative spiritual tradition > a former TMer turns toespecially a former initiatorhe or she will approach, > and even practiseand evaluatethat new technique *entirely in terms of their > pervious experience of Transcendental Meditation*. TM is not just different, > obbajeeba; it is distinct and separate from everything else spiritually in > existence. > > This is why Rick Archer always comes offto me at leastas so much more > conversant with the religious forms of experience, with spiritual reality, > with how to understand states of consciousness than any of his guests (except > for the TM ones: like Phil Goldberg and Dana Sawyer). Despite turning from TM > and Maharishi, his nervous system has been schooled in the TM-Maharishi-Guru > Dev universe, and this shows through at every level of himself. Even as he > now professes to have a more authentic religious experience through his > relationship with Mata Amritanandamayi (Amma: the Hugging Saint) than he did > with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. > > Every one of us keen initiators, throughout the early and mid seventies, > would have been nonplussed by any TM teacher trying to make the argument you > make here. It wouldn't make sense to us. We did not just abide by what > Maharishi had told us about guarding "the purity of The Teaching"; we felt it > in our very soul. It was so manifestly clear to us that TM was something > absolutely special, and could never be compared to anything that had been > offered in our lifetime [our present one :-)] We acted on behalf of this > notion of "No Saints" scrupulously, but not, as I say, out of deference to > Maharishi; we could intuitively, deeply, feel the necessity of this. After > all, what Master had produced the experience that "Mother is at Home"? What > Master could allow us to confirm for ourselves that we were getting "The > Support of Nature"? What other Master could deliver on his promise that once > we became initiators, we could give to some other human being, a perfect > stranger, this ultimate transcendent experience? The Checking Notes > themselvesthe Checking Procedure as memorized and appliedare more > dazzlingly and perfectly efficient than anything in existence. And there is > no Master in our lifetime who systematically made teachers of this wisdom > such that we could actually have the experience of tuning into the Holy > Tradition, to having the experiences that previously were reserved for Hindus > who sought silence in some Himalayan cave. > > Lookee here, obbajeeba: TM, Maharishi, becoming a TM Teacherall the advanced > techniques that followed (including of course the Two Week Extension and the > Sidhis)entailed participating in a certain metaphysical context within > creation. And there is nothing nor ever will be anything just like TM and > just like Maharishi (seen through our golden glasses as devout initiators). > > It is a very simple thing: the very moment Bevan relents on this policy, the > floodgates will open and TM will dilute in its potency, and there will be a > mystical mixture of substances which are not made to unite. If Bevan lifts > the No Saints ruling, thus going directly against his Master's wishes, he > will pollute everything, and TM will quite swiftly lose whatever status and > efficacy it has presentlyand the whole project of Maharishi will not just > flounder; it will alter its nature, and it will attenuate into something > almost unrecognizable to what it has always been. No, Bevan is being true to > Maharishi, to Guru Dev, and to the actual mechanical nature of TM to stick to > his absolute fiat. > > Now I would never think about doing TM againand I have a pretty cynical view > of who Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is seen sub specie aeternitatis. But were I > still practicing and teaching TMand remained as Bevan is, devoted utterly to > MaharishiI would offer to debate this issue with anyoneeven in a public > forum. Because it happens to be, if you accept what TM actually is [and watch > Ellen Degeneres and Martin Scorsese and read 'Mrs Price's' letter to Emily], > like nothing else. And either is any other Saint or Master of our time like > Maharishi. With all his faults and failings and worse, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, > at his peak, was like no one who has ever been since Christ. No one on this > forum who was at the zenith of their enthusiasm for TM and devotion to > Maharishi would even be capable of questioning this judgment. > > The problem comes in when one looks at the long-term effects of TM, and the > actions of Maharishi in private. Well, then, the argument could be made: why > not subject TM to the eclecticism of the New Age smorgasbord and let it fend > for itself? This would be fatal. Maybe it is coming, but the first person of > final authority who bends this rule brings on the deluge. And the final > ignominious fate of TM and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. > > No, obbejeeba; it's either TM or bust. Bevan is acting and Feste37 intuits > thisin accordance with what he believes and knows to be the very desire of > Guru Dev himself. > > There will be plenty of arguments flying back against what I have said here; > but no one will seriously believe that he or she can change Bevan's mind > about this. Because if they could, it would mean that even Bevan has > abandoned his own beloved Masterand this would throw the whole Movement, > Purusha, Mother Divine, into permanent confusion. > > I reject TM and Maharishi absolutely. But at the same time, if I am to > believe in my experiences under TM and Maharishiincluding my > enlightenmentthen I must firmly come out totally on the side of Bevan. All > objections to this No Saint policy are destined to be futile. Maharishi, in > his own way, created something miraculousat the level of *experience* > anyway. And his possession of integrityin some basic sense: even Judith > Bourque gave him absolute credit herewas undeniable. As I knew only too well > by being in his physical presence. > > The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream. The emperor was Maharishi; the > ice-cream was, and is, TM. > > Robin
Beautiful and very well put Robin; thank you ! My wish is these to be the last words in this evergoing "saint" issue and that Buck et al take what you have written to heart.