--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > Hi, Robin-- > > > 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. > > I honestly doubt I'm the only one. I think you were quite > clear. I have also had the impression others share that > ambivalence--not at such great extremes either way, but > enough to have a sense of where you're coming from. We > saw a number of people here express similar conflicted > feelings when Maharishi died. > > That said, you're a perplexing critter, Robin, and it's > not surprising that you throw people for a loop sometimes! > > > 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. > > I think that's right. I also think he gets something of > a kick out of being contrary on occasion just for the > hell of it. > > <snip> > > 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. > > Of course, he could continue to do exactly that without > any pretense. He apparently thinks posing as a former > TMer and TM teacher gives him additional credibility, > but the pose isn't convincing enough for that to work > for many of us. His critiques would actually have more > credibility if he'd been straight with us from the start, > as you go on to point out (and as Xeno recently noted as > well): > > > 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. > > Exactly. > > > 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. > > I wish it hadn't come to that for you. I wish there was > some other way you could have worked it out for yourself > that didn't require such an agonizing break. > > > When you post out the string section of the orchestra stops > > playing. OK, Seve: the horn section. > > <grin> That's nice, thank you. (If I had my druthers, I'd > be the trombone section. Gotta work on that.)
This was a rare and sincere exhange of posts for FFL these days, thanks to both of you. Just a short comment to your feeling of "betrayel" Robin. Since I do not know what excactly you are refferring to I can only hint in a general way. Many I know could feel bewildered that their love was not returned. Sometimes someone would be completely lost. This happened quite often. But somehow, somewhere there was a reason for this that dawned on the fellow only gradually and years later. Some people still don't understand, or refuse to understand and will have to work on this perhaps their whole life. In general I know for certain that in the majority of these cases the sudden break of contact from Maharishi's side always was to be found in the persons behaviour. Even if someone was working on another continent the Devas that worked closely with Maharishi would report back, be it the good, the not so good and the bad. He would always know. As you probably know, because of Maharishi's patience and love, someone could behave badly for a long time. But not forever. Sooner or later Maharishi would turn away. Even "smaller" sins, like being rough on the feeling level towards others would sooner or later, if the person did not change, result in Maharishi abandoning the fellow. This is just a general note, I'm not implying that this is what happenned in your case.
