Dear Vaj, Here's the problem with your analysis, Vaj: If one were to read what Share Long has posted, then my post in response to her post, a person would form a certain portrait of this manin the abstract, then. But presumably with some faint feeling of what this guy must have been like to know in person.
But if a person were to form their idea of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi from your comments, *they would come away with an impression or idea of Maharishi which would not even begin to account for the influence he had, nor the context within which that video was created*. Your 'truth' about Maharishi tends to reflect back upon you more than it leads the disinterested and impartial reader to the reality of Maharishi. Do you understand how I could form this judgment of your post, Vaj? Now, if you choose to respond to me, don't prove my thesis by drawing attention to yourself (your first person ontology) rather than, as you should, to this controverted issue of the truth about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I believe I hold within myself a critical stance towards Maharishiin one very important waywhich is more powerful and meaningful in its negative construal of this man than in anything you have ever said about him. But I also have to be true to my *experience*and the experiences of thousands of others. Maharishi had an influence upon me which has made me what I ameven though I consider him the enemy of my final personal integrity. Why not just seek what is most real, Vaj, instead of being a crotchety, debunking, bitter hater of all things TM and Maharish and the TMO? It is not that I have an issue with your indictment of Maharishi; it's just the personal animus behind your campaign of calumniation which I find distasteful in the extreme, regardless of the very impressive knowledge your bring to bear in your critique. Let us not provoke each other here. Respectfully, Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Robin Carlsen wrote: > > > Now this leaves open the question, then, of Maharishi's actual > > status independently of TM (and everything else that was added to > > this over time). Are there personsnot Indian saints in the > > Himalayasthe saints in Rishikesh paid tribute to him in the late > > sixtiesunanimously; they knew and apprehended him as a person > > fully realizednot to say dazzling and wonderful to behold and > > communicate withAre there persons in the world who could view this > > video and recognize this was the most impressive human being of our > > lifetime? I am interested in this question, Share, because when I > > was loving Maharishi with the entirety of my being I would play > > vidoes of Maharishi to my non-TM friends, and I was alway shocked > > at their very mild and unspectacular experience of him. *I could > > not understand this*. > > > You seem to get easily bowled over by many things Robin. My family > saw him as a con man in disguise - and guess what? They turned out to > be right. What I see when I see Maharishi photos or videos I see an > extremely clever and cunning individual who, probably because he was > raised in significant poverty was driven to succeed no matter what or > no matter who tried to get in his way. He had the intelligence and > the ambition to be a successful CEO, and that's just what he became. > > > And, just to remind you, he gave me everything he promised. But I > > want to focus on him, the person. I believe there must be at least > > one person in the worldI assume more than one personwho really > > *knew* Maharishi in terms of what he represented as a member of the > > Holy Tradition, > > > > Perhaps you need to read up on the topic - but Mahesh was never a > part of the Holy Tradition, sorry, even he's acknowledged this. Truth > be told, he would be more likely considered an Asuriac guru by most > Hindu definitions. Perhaps he's what you at one time would have > called a "demonic guru"? > > > in being a true Master, in being a person in a state of Vedic > > grace, in terms of being the smartest, wittiest, wisest, and more > > discerning person alive. No book has been written about Maharishi > > which even comes close to describing who he was as a man, as a > > human being, as a Master. I wait for such an account of Maharishi. > > > > If it was an honest account, I doubt it would be anywhere near your > rose-colored portrait. If anything, time has revealed the man behind > the mask, while you (and many others) still seem strangely fixated on > the mask...kinda funny, but kinda sad at the same time. >
