TM transformed me. Maharishi created an experience in me that told me he was the embodiment of the highest truth. The romance I refer to is the romance that Saint Francis of Assisi (not comparing me to him, of course) had for Christ. Maharishi appeared to make me enlightened. Enlightenment was everything I could have imagined it to be from Maharishi's description in The Science of Being and Art of Living, in all his videos, is his lectures to us live. I acted for ten years inside an entirely different context than I had up until the very moment before I 'slipped into Unity'. At some point in the ten years I was introduced through two friendswhile I was in New York giving a seminarto the Eucharist (I was sick at the time). Taking into my body the Host produced a remarkable experience, and this seemed even more subtle than TM. I subsequently surrendered myself to the Roman Catholic Church.
The doctrines of Catholicism were in conflict with my enlightenment. I read Thomas Aquinas: either he was right or Maharishi was right. Aquinas seemed to have a more profound grasp of reality than did Maharishi, and I began to realize: Robin, it's either Aquinas (the Catholic truth) or it's your enlightenment, TM, and Maharishi. Under the inspiration of a priest I finally made my decision: my enlightenment, even though an objectively different state of consciousness with real life consequences for one's free will and actions, must be ultimately false to reality. Once I judged this to be true, I immediately became aware of the evidencewith the help of my best friendof problems within me which had, as it were, 'set me up' for getting enlightened. I have concentrated on confronting myself these past 24 yearsand my enlightenment has gone away. Now my experience of Maharishi was very profound. In my heart I felt something I had never felt before or since: Maharishi seemed to hold within himself the love and intelligence behind all o creation. He radiated the bliss and truth of reality. When I compare this experienceand this Master Disciple relationship extended into my enlightenmentto the experience of loving another human being, the sense of romance in the classic sense seemed much greater to me. Now the factors which led to my enlightenment are complex, but besides my own weakness and naiveties and blind spots, there is the matter of angelic intelligencesas I perceived themwhich are at the mechanical basis, or so I believe based upon experimental knowledge, of how one becomes enlightened. These intelligences were very active once I began TM, especially when I attended long rounding courses in Europe. Eventually through my devotion to my Master and my practising his techniques, I went into Unity Consciousness (all this, as Judy says, is contained in a number of books that I wrote after becoming enlightened). What those books don't saythey were all completed before 1982is that Catholicism (1986) destroyed my enlightenment; or should I say my recognition of the truths of Catholicism made my enlightenment something that simply could not have happened under the beneficent influence of the sacraments, the Virgin Mary, and conceiving of God as the Holy Trinity. Now I eventually realized that Catholicism itself was not what it used to be. And I came to see the Catholic Church as lacking the supernatural efficacy of its claims. It once (before the Second World War) did represent reality; but it no longer did. And I had to abandon that spiritual context as well. Now comes on my personal relationship to Maharishi. As long as Maharishi behaved as the perfect human being, there was nothing I could do but go with my experience, which was one of profound devotion and love and surrender. Once he began to make missteps, once he began to reveal some imperfections, my concept of him began to crumble. Now you must understand that my appreciation for Maharishi as my Master extended even into my Catholicism; but at a certain point after reading Aquinas and rejecting my enlightenment, I had to reject him too, as well as TM. Once I entered into this process Maharishi began to show his feet of clay, until mid-way through 1987 I realized that Maharishi himself, like I was, was deceived. Now Zarzari, when I contemplate the time between around 1969 through 1986and most intensely while being around Maharishi at my TTC, ATR, and my Six Month CourseI remember the sensation in my body, the feeling in my heart, the adoration in my soul, and the expansion of my mind, and I realize that I enjoyed the highest romance anyone could ever have. Just because I have rejected Maharishi, does not mean that I must jettison those memories of what it was like to be around him, and what he projected of the majesty of his consciousness.To be around Maharishi say between 1972 and 1976 was to be in the presence of a spectacularly beautiful being, and that being made menot in a sensual or erotic sensefeel as if there could be no greater love. I believe Maharishi's feelings for his own Master were the same, and if he understood the term Romance in its fullest sense, he would concur that the greatest romance of his life was his relationship to Guru Dev. Where the deceitfulness comes in is these cosmic intelligences which Maharishi openly discusses and describes as being instrumental in the spiritual progress of someone doing Transcendental Meditation. For Aquinas and the Catholic Church to be right [before Vatican II] must mean that these intelligences, however much bliss and power and mastery they effect in one, ultimately are not working for the well-being of the individual. They are deceitful; ergo, Maharishi is deceitfulalthough eventually I came to see him even in his own individual life as a divided and conflicted personor so it seemed when he began to lose some of his beauty and integrityhis consciousness remained infinite I believe right to the end of his life. Thus you have the Romance and the Deceit. Since you are not interested in pursuing this matter (see the end of your post) with me, I will leave it at this. I loved Maharishi Mahesh Yogi more than I have ever loved any human beingI am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of us former TM initiators who felt similarly. I also believe that Maharishi, to be what he wasat the height of his influence and powerwas even a more perfect victim of these same cosmic intelligences than I was. Eventually, it would seem, these intelligences began to cause Maharishi to lose the colossal grace that had supported him since he came out of India. And then the disillusionment set in. This plus the fact that TM did not, in the long-term, produce the effect that had the nature of an intrinsic promise in that first experience of transcending. Bevan Morris, Tony Nader, and John Hagelin should be, by my reckoning based upon what happened to me between 1969 and 1976 (under the brilliant influence of Maharishi), the most beautiful human beings on the earth. They are not. This tends to suggest that their own sense of the spiritual romance with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is fraught with something that arguably takes the form of deceit. That said, I believe that no human beings since Christ have had the quality of experience we initiators had in the physical presence of Maharishi in the early and mid-seventies. If any one of us were suddenly transported back in time and forced to inhabit our own personal consciousness at that time, we would not even question the notion that this was the best experience anyone has had since Christ. Probably better. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > 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. > > > > > > Which is a deceptive perception IMO- > > > > I'm not arguing for its validity. It seems very strange > > to me as well, but I don't doubt his sincerity in > > expressing it. > > Deception is deception. I don't have to doubt that he believes in it. Is that > what you mean, that he 'sincerly' believes? Yet sincerity would also imply > to have a willingness to investigate things really. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Yes, this is understood. It is so for many people who were > > > heavily involved, myself included, but it is the normal > > > process, many are going through. > > > > None of them, however, have had the same huge challenges > > to deal with. You really can't call what Robin has had to > > go through a "normal process." > > I hope with the word 'normal' process no pun is intended. > > <snip> > > > > Sure, that kind of relationship can be compared, and it is > > > really like a divorce, (I think, as I have never been > > > divorced). But there is a difference: If I cut a > > > relationship with my wife, I am not making assumptions > > > about anybody elses relationship to my wife having to be > > > equal, otherwise I couldn't take him serious. If I do that > > > I am a pimp, who is trying to sell my wife. It is these > > > kind of statements I am arguing about. If somebody says as > > > if he is betraying Guru Dev, because of whatever he says, > > > not knowing about Guru Dev from any type of first hand > > > account etc. > > > > I'm not getting what you're after here. Could you give it > > another shot? > > If you are in love, it is a private thing. You don't use it as a model how > others have to see things. > > I mean statements like these: > > "Now, if you did, Vaj, it would cause me to have a criterion to prove to you > that you lie about TM, Maharishi, and being an initiator. Because, you see, > in divulging what your real and genuine take on Ravi Chivukula was, you would > be acting in a manner and inside a context contrary to how you act when you > write about TM, Maharishi, and being an initiator." > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/298522 > > This was one of the first posts I read of Robin, I am not studying like you > do, Judy, and it made me stumble at how a person could make such an absurd > statement. It is full of emotional hyperbole. What would a statement Vaj > makes about Ravi have to do with TM/MMY etc? > > Or from the same post, again to Vaj: > "Your insinuation that you have, remains just an invisible simulacrum of > reality: you have no conviction about Ravi that you would submit as the > truthsay, on point of death." > > Judy, if you don't get what I mean, then I can't help you, I am simply > missing the words. I mean, he asks Vaj to make his statement of 'truth', 'at > the point of death.' > > Don't get the drama? Then I can't help. What puzzles me, nay what I really > don't like is, the matter of factly voice he wants to impose his own emotions > on to someone else as a moral rule. I have no excuse for this, it is deeply > manipulative. That's totally different from a person who lost his love, and > is still mourning. > > > > > I mean these typical TB statements, which as you rightly > > > point out, almost don't occure on this forum anymore, and > > > then unexpected out of the mouth of a person who makes the > > > most outrageous claims with regard to all knowledge eastern. > > > > Again, the bit about Eastern knowledge doesn't work for > > me, but I'm not sure why that should somehow *negate* his > > sincerity regarding the TB stuff, given that he's made it > > very clear that what he's describing is his perspective > > before he renounced it all. It's still vivid in his mind; > > you would hardly expect it to be otherwise. > > So you don't think that his demonizing this path, his own path, and > simultaneausly eulogizing it, is completely normal, not somehow > schizophrenic? Btw. time usually heals wounds, when did this happen, when did > he leave TM, or his 'unity-reality', I mean it wasn't yesterday, right? Maybe > 10 years gone? How could you truly love somebody and at the same time > demonize that person? Sorry, I pass here. > > > > > And who are you, pray tell, to call someone's expression > > > > of their adoration "overly romantic"? > > > > > > Do you know? How doyou know? > > > > Do I know what? "Who are you" is just a figure of speech, > > if that's what you're asking. It's shorthand for, "Why do > > you think you're in a position to decide what is 'overly' > > romantic for anyone besides yourself?" > > Give me a break, that's my healthy judgment. > > > <snip> > > > I don't remember exactly what you said, but it doesn't > > have anything to do with believing you or not believing > > you. I used "falling in love" to mean the kind of intense > > personal devotion some, including Robin, had for MMY. > > I had love for Maharishi, I had devotion and worked for him, I did what he, > or the movement told me at the time. And I think I can rightly say, you don't > need to teach me about intense bhakti. But what he is doing is romantizising, > that's different. Romantizising means to impose your own fancy ideas on a > lover, ideas that aren't true, ideas you will not care to validate. Love is > not just a feeling, you have to act upon it, if you have a Guru, you have to > see what the guru is actually saying, and not project something onto him. > Robin creates a world of his own. > > > > > > No, what I am refering to overly romantic are statements, > > > where, matter of factly, he says that since Christ there > > > was nobody like Maharishi. I call this overly romantic, > > > because he can have only second hand knowledge even of the > > > existence of Christ, and he just doesn't know anyone else, > > > any of all the great masters who even lived in the last > > > century or throughout history. > > > > He'll have to justify the validity of that comparison for > > himself; seems hyperbolic to me as well. But I assume he > > has some basis for it, and it would be interesting to hear > > him explain it. I wouldn't want to dismiss it out of hand > > as "overly" anything until I had a better idea of how he > > sees it, what he means by it. > > Well, I do dismiss it right out of hand, as whatever he may say, he cannot > know all the other canditates, so it is a very ignorant statement, neither > can he know christ except his own idea of him. > > > > <snip> > > > > 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. > > > > > > > How do you know I did not experience? > > > > I'm going by whatever it was you *said* earlier. And you > > said above that it wasn't "falling in love." My point is > > that others *did* "fall in love" with MMY, and I don't > > know why you think you can question that experience-- > > specifically with MMY--when you haven't had it. > > People have different ways of expressing love or devotion. Falling in love to > a guru, is something akin to falling in love with a girl or man, it doesn't > mean ultimate devotion. You can just love and have devotion without falling > in love. The difference is encapsuled in the word romantic. > > > > > You just don't know. But then I am not going from house to > > > house with that. And yes, I did also fall in love with > > > teachers, or saints, even I was about to fall in love with > > > Ammachi one time, but I knew she was not my master. But > > > that does not entitly me to make exaggerated and generalizing > > > statements. > > > > It entitles you to express your opinion and personal > > feelings, whatever they may be, exaggerated and > > generalizing or not. It doesn't entitle me, even if I'd > > had my own experiences along those lines, to say you > > aren't entitled to them. All I'm entitled to say is that > > they seem exaggerated and generalizing *to me*. > > No, if I love my wife (or girl friend), it is alright, and it is just me, me, > me. If I make this now the condition of approach for anyone to my wife, I am > not entitled to it, as I put my own personal feelings as the measure stick > for everyone. I am not entitled to do that, period. > > > > But I do undertsand it is not easy for anybody. So, in no > > > way, do I attack Robins feelings, but I do attack the > > > mind-state of TB he formed around it. > > > > Robin's mind-state isn't easy to grok, and it's *really* > > difficult to grok in bits and pieces. Even if you have the > > stamina to read every word he's written here, there's so > > *much* of it that it's tough to keep it all in mind. If you > > don't have a photographic memory, to some extent you're > > dealing with bits and pieces willy-nilly simply because you > > can't remember everything on the whole epic canvas he's > > been laying out (and even that isn't complete). > > Judy, I think if you really want to understand him, you have to be him. I > personally prefer if you stay who you are. > > > That said, if one has been paying more than superficial > > attention to what Robin has posted, it seems to me > > incontrovertible that nobody here has even come close in > > their own lives to what he's been through. Almost > > Shakespearean, on a small scale, at least. Not to make a > > hero of him--more of an antihero, perhaps--it's just that > > his story is unique. > > It's drama, drama, drama. Emotional, cosmic dimensions, right? > > > > He seems to welcome challenges as long as they're not > > in-your-face disrespectful. I don't know if he saw your > > earlier post addressing him directly, but I suspect he'd > > be responsive if you could get his attention. Such an > > exchange would be so much more interesting than the > > current personal snipe-fests! > > > What's a snipe-fest? Anyway, I don't share the same interest / fascination as > you do. I mean there is no way for me to even remotely considering RC. My > spiritual samskaras are just not in this direction. >
