The latter is in the Fairfield library. I have read it. It seems that, thank God, such does not trigger my particular set of samskaras, vasanas, karmas, etc.
I have other issues, other blocks to developing and loving better. Universe has a sense of humor. How I know this is that I received Domes of Gold this morning. Before Dome (-: I listened to it twice. Then, just to be fair, I listened to Sting's Field of Gold. Then I was flooded with soma, could feel it in my gut, literally. is this love? personal? universal? For me, the most important truth about love is that hearts are very very tender. Good to proceed gently... ________________________________ From: Robin Carlsen <maskedze...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: for those who still love and or thank Maharishi And for a perspective on Maharishi that I find unimpeachable I recommend Robert McCutcheon's "Afterword and Witness Testimonial" in Judy Bourque's *Robes of Silk Feet of Clay* (pp. 213-219). Quite definitive, I think. --- 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 persons—not Indian saints in the > > Himalayas—the saints in Rishikesh paid tribute to him in the late > > sixties—unanimously; they knew and apprehended him as a person > > fully realized—not to say dazzling and wonderful to behold and > > communicate with—Are 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 world—I assume more than one person—who 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. >
