Okay this is going to sound really stupid to you, but I think he was just a really bright guy. I mean from what I've gone through (which is dealing with schizophrenia, a little) I think guy is just really bright. He probably saw things that no one else saw and that matters. Because I sometimes see "nonsense"(um quantum mechanical gibberish, like pointed out earlier) and I also see perfection. I see a lot of stuff that would not make sense to people. Maybe Maharishi was a little bad at things because he was a perfectionist, nothing wrong with that. If he let go and let a little grey into the movement, everything would suck, a lot. People want perfection and personally I need to let the "grey" or "love" into my life. Personally I think this is all leading to he did not want the distortions of "negative emotions" get in the way, as that's what the kundalini and chakras say. I mean grounding color is staying true to who you are and being right in your belief. You have to be a little crazy and a little negative to do that, like most people I know. So stay true to your nature and grow!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shainm307" <shainm307@> wrote: > > > > > > ... Essentially I said It's not proven[but that doesn't > > > mean we should lie and say it's not true as it works; > > > plus considering it came from Maharishi it could be true]... > > > > Good for you for speaking your mind, keep at it and challenge > > everything (even the idea that if it comes from Maharishi > > it's more likely to be true)... > > *Especially* the idea that if it came from Maharishi > it's more likely to be true. While I still value the > occasional thing he said, I have to also recognize > that he was one of the most irrational, superstitious > people I've ever met on this planet. > > Case in point. One day at Squaw Valley in 1968, I got > to see Maharishi start to walk into the big meeting > hall, only to stop in his tracks one step into the > room. His face turned white ( which if you think about > it is not easy for a guy with his complexion ) and he > turned around and almost ran away from the room. He > was in such a panic that people found a bench for him > to sit down on until he could settle down a little and > explain what it was that set him off. > > Turns out that he was a bit early for the meeting, and > the cleanup crew had not finished setting up the room. > As a result, most of the chairs in the room were sit- > ting upside down on tables, I assume because the crew > had to get them out of the way while they mopped the > floors. > > When Maharishi could finally talk, he explained to > Jerry and the others with him that upside-down chairs > were considered to be one of the worst possible omens > in India. In his words at the time, their presence in > a room allowed demons and rakshasas to invade the space. > He refused to enter the room until the situation had > been rectified, and even then didn't trust the crew at > the hotel; he insisted on sending in a few of his own > people to verify that the room had been rendered > "rakshasa-free." > > Now, was all of this either "likely to be true" because > Maharishi believed it, or even *possibly* true? I'll wait. > > My position is that over the years people in the TMO > developed a remarkably *unhealthy* regard for Maharishi's > beliefs ( [being gay] "Better to be dead!" ) and super- > stitions ( an icicle clearly formed by water dripping > from a roof onto a balcony was a "manifestation of Shiva" ) > being somehow "true" just because he expressed them. > > Need I mention the numerous things he was "sure" about > over the years, such as the inevitable success of Vedaland, > England being a "scorpion nation," and exercise being BAD > for people because each person has only a predetermined > number of breaths in their lifetime and thus raising one's > breath rate with exercise would shorten their lives? Does > anyone remember the lectures and brochures that promised > ( in so many words ) CC in 5-8 years? Need we mention that > back in Squaw Valley on that 1968 course he warned his > students over and over against *ever* getting involved in > any way with the siddhis, and that they were *dangerous*? > > The guy was just a guy. He was in my considered opinion > a mix of well-meaning and charlatan. During his earlier > years of teaching, I suspect that he leaned more towards > the well-meaning side; in the latter years he devolved > into almost pure charlatanry. > > I simply cannot *comprehend* anyone who actually believes > that because he said something -- ANYTHING -- that makes > it "more likely to be true." >
