[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- 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 going—before 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 changes—almost 
> > immediately—in 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 existence—I 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 style—and Ellen when she extolled the benefits of TM was 
> > as convincing and persuasive as anyone could be—likewise when 'Mrs Price' 
> > wrote her letter to Emily—is 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 is—this is my argument based upon 
> > empirical evidence—absolutely no cross-pollination with any other technique 
> > or forms of meditation. In fact, I contend that whatever alternative 
> > spiritual tradition a former TMer turns to—especially a former initiator—he 
> > or she will approach, and even practise—and evaluate—that 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 off—to me at least—as 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 
> > themselves—the Checking Procedure as memorized and applied—are 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 Teacher—all 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 presently—and 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 again—and I have a pretty cynical 
> > view of who Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is seen sub specie aeternitatis. But were 
> > I still practicing and teaching TM—and remained as Bevan is, devoted 
> > utterly to Maharishi—I would offer to debate this issue with anyone—even 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 
> > this—in 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 Master—and 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 Maharishi—including my 
> > enlightenment—then 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 miraculous—at the level of *experience* 
> > anyway. And his possession of integrity—in some basic sense: even Judith 
> > Bourque gave him absolute credit here—was 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.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your positive estimation of what I have said here, 
nablusoss1008. I have been searching for that post where you (I think it was 
you) offered me some counsel regarding the break-up of Romance with Maharishi. 
I am keen on finding that post, because I would like to tell you about my 
experiences of being with Maharishi, especially when I was alone with him. 
Perhaps you could point me towards that post by telling me what number it was?

Meanwhile thank you for your generous words. I don't think it insignificant 
that someone like you is able to preserve your original faith in and devotion 
to Maharishi. From one perspective I think this heroic. But perhaps we can talk 
about this in the light of what I'd like to say about my relationship with 
Maharishi—if, that is, it was in fact you who were consoling, or attempting to 
console, me in view of my falling out with Maharishi. I just was not in a 
position to answer your post at that time. I am now.

Robin