--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote:
> Do not other's here adore and eulogize TM and Maharishi > in an overly romantic way, while stating simultaneausly > it is the most deceptive way, the devil invented? Only Robin has done that. > Or did I misread something here? How honest and serious > can a person be, making simultaneously such contradictory > statements? Talking of integrity. Just sayin' If you read carefully, they aren't contradictory. As I see it, Robin had to force himself to give up something that had meant the world to him because he found it to be *ultimately*--in the full meaning of the term--deceptive. Whether or not one is inclined to agree with him, it must have been extraordinarily painful, and it's reflected in his posts about what was for him a profound loss. It's hardly unheard-of after a wrenching divorce for one former spouse to speak with great passion about the other while acknowledging the impossibility of continuing the relationship, for whatever reason (perhaps because the other cheated, to load the analogy a bit). And who are you, pray tell, to call someone's expression of their adoration "overly romantic"? For your taste, perhaps, and you're entitled to that perspective. But it isn't right, IMHO, to state it as if it were an established fact. Some here have found the posts you're referring to deeply moving, even tragic. As I recall, you've said you never had the experience of falling in love with MMY when you were in the TMO. That's fine, not everyone did. But by the same token, you aren't in a position to question the sincerity and depth of others' feelings about him when you haven't experienced what they did. Judy: I am grateful to you for having understood me so well in my ambivalent attitude towards Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It is a real consolation to know that someone at least on FFL has grasped the contradiction of my experience of MMY as accurately as you have. This means a lot to me. So that, when I came to this part of your post, I rejoiced in the fact that there was a human being who followed everything I have written about Maharishi and was therefore able to explain to zarzari_786 the paradox which had so perturbed and discomfited him. The paradox which, evidently, he felt constituted proof of my insincerity. I also appreciate the painstaking care you have taken to adduce proof of the mendacity of Vaj. Steveas I tried to point out to himhas some compulsive need to exonerate Vaj from this indictment, as hebless his soulrather recoils from having to commit himself to a definitive view of someone which deprives him of the satisfaction of being able to find the good in that person. Steve is more motivated to believe in Vaj's claims of being an initiator than he is driven to find out the truth about Vaj: he doesn't want to 'go there'. Because this would interfere with his view of the world. So Steve in defending the veracity, or possible veracity, of Vaj's testimony that he is a TM initiator, is upholding the psychological integrity of his own world. This seems meritorious from one perspective; but from the perspective of fearless and objective inquiry into the truth, it is an escape from having to bear more reality (of a certain kind) than Steve wishes to bear or even evidently is capable of bearing. Steve argues far more sincerely on behalf of Vaj than Vaj has even attempted to argue on behalf of himself. Vaj proves he is a liar by the depersonalizing of himself in the act of making these claims. He makes sure (because, after all, these claims do not really touch him; they are a complete fiction) that he is not invested in the truth of what he tells us about his relationship to TM. It's: take it or leave it. So Vaj doesn't really care whether we believe him or not; as long as no one is able to conclusively prove he is a liar about his relationship to TM and Maharishi, it means he can continue to post his hostile and biased remarks about TM and Maharishi. If Vaj were really telling us the truth, thenI have made this point before,we should have to explain a phenomenon that for me defies human nature: viz. how can someone be telling the truth of what actually happened to them and at the same time spontaneously instil in the audience perfect doubt and skepticism about that very truth? Why should anyone even be disposed to doubt Vaj in the first place? Is it the case that those of us who are TM or former TM teachersor even just meditatorsmust first of all pass some test of credibility? Not at all: we assume when someone says they do TM or they are a TM Teacher, that they are telling us the truth. I doubt there is a single poster at FFL who created any kind of problem of their credibility in identifying themselves as a TM Teacher. Suppose being a TM Teacher I try to do the reverse of what Vaj is doing: I deny that I ever was initiated into TM, that I ever initiated several hundred persons into TM. Someone would expose me as a liar, and furnish the evidence for this. And in having it proven that I was lying, there would be some form of evidenceavailable ideally in a perfectly intuitive personthat I was violating my conscience, that I was at odds with my own integrity, that I was saying something that I knew was not true. Now take Vaj: let us assume for argument's sake that indeed he *is* telling the truth about his association with TM and Maharishi. Why then, how then, does the issue of his truthfulness in this regard even come up for discussion? It is impossible for someone to sincerely doubt the word of Vaj *if he were in fact telling the truth* because saying what is true and saying what is not true have different psychological and aesthetic consequences. If Vaj actually was a former TM Teacher I submit it would be impossible for him*even if he made this his greatest ambition*to be doubted in this claim. But Vaj's credentials are questioned. The issue then becomes: Why are Vaj's credentials challenged? And the only answer can be that Vaj has provided evidence that forces an objective witness to question his truthfulness. I say it again: if Vaj really did have some relationship to Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, try as he might, he would not be able to disguise this truth, or create doubt that he was being truthful. For the actual fact that he *was* a former TM Teacher, this would have its influence upon us quite independent of what Vaj's motivation was in telling us he was a TM Teacher. You understand what I am saying, Judy: just in the nature of the case it is impossible for Vaj to have created the extreme doubt among many of us TM Teachers that he has been initiated into TM, let alone been a TM initiator if he in fact had had these experiences. Where does this doubt and disbelief come from? How is it possible even to begin to doubt someone who says they are a TM Teacher? I think in the whole world this issue has never, could never, come up. But it won't go away here, because those of us who don't have some kind of political agenda here experience that Vaj actually betrays his mendacity about TM and Maharishi *in the very form of how he writes about these realities*. Because Vaj is being dishonest with us, it takes away from him the authority and integrity he would naturally have in discussing these things, and therefore one of the consequences of his lying to us is that his posts about TM and Maharishias written by a supposed insiderlack the feeling of truth and sincerity. If Vaj is lying about his relationship to TM and Maharishi, then it must mean when he talks about this, that he comes off as inauthentic. And this is the consensus among those of us willing to bear the reality of knowing and judging Vaj to be a liar. But let me close by returning to my initial reason in posting this, Judy; that is, my appreciation in reading someone talking about my relationship to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in a way which demonstrates that this person has felt what for me was the terrible truth of Maharishi: that I did love him more than I have loved anyone; and that in the end my love was betrayed. When you post out the string section of the orchestra stops playing. OK, Seve: the horn section.
