--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Maharishi: People will enjoy this book. They will enjoy your insight. > > VK: I haven't any insight. It's your wisdom they will enjoy, and they will > > enjoy it all the more when set against my ignorance. > > Maharishi: See what insight you have! > > > > Robin: This, for me, proves Maharishi was enlightened. His delivery of > > irony is pitch-perfect, and his sense of the reverberations of this remark, > > as it travels throughout the universe, that too is gorgeously sensitive. > > This is whatwhen Maharishi owned the acoustic of Creation (late sixties to > > mid-seventies)made me realize he was my Master. I didn't entirely realize > > this until reading this exchange between him and Vernon Katz. That sense of > > humour and irony it was impeccable in all the time I knew Maharishi. > > > > I remember an exchange he had at Humboldt with Jonathan Shear about > > existentialism where Maharishi essentially made the same point. JS: "Well, > > from where I see it, it seems one way, and yet you are saying from where > > you see it it is something else" [I am paraphrasing here]. *Maharishi > > starts laughing almost uncontrollably*.Which caused the microphone to move > > creating static, whereupon Maharishi remarked: "See? Even Nature objects to > > this idea" [paraphrasing again: Maharishi referring to the basic idea of > > Shear's as to what existentialism meant in the philosophical sense; whereas > > Maharishi interpreted "existentialism" in its purely ontological sense]. > > > > He was sharper and funnier than Letterman. The universe, the whole > > universe, for awhile at least, thought him the consummate ironist. And he > > was. > > > > This was my take anyhow. It was in the final analysis, the intelligence of > > Maharishi which made me love him and surrender myself to him. You have to > > be taking in a lot of reality to be meaningfully ironic. > > > > Without a sense of irony what can one really say about what is real? A > > Saint without a perfect sense of humour: that is almost an oxymoron. I > > believe Chesterton figured humour an essential element in Christ's > > perspective on the universe. > > > > Lawson, have you read this book? Do you recommend it? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Robin > > > Hello Robin. Perhaps you are posting this question to someone else, but > first; I thoroughly enjoyed your response to those 3 short sentences, very > nice, and I think you caught that humour spot on. I've met a few yogis during > my travels and they all had a great sense of humour, but no one came even > close to Maharishi's. What a joy to have been able to witness such a great > soul ! > > And yes, I'm reading it now, a very informal and joyous book. It's > conversations with Maharishi that Mr. Katz started to tape in between the > work for the publishing of Maharishi's commetaries on the Brahma Sutras that > started in Lake Tahoe 1968 and continued in Kashmir next year. They are > inbetween discussions on a wide range of topics such as CC, dissolution of > stress, GC, UC, knowledge of Unity, evaluation of external reality, Brahman > consciousness, experience and understanding, Maharishi's approach to the > Brahma Sutras, understanding and liberation, Brahman as the supreme > authority, Shruti and Smriti, The transition from God Consciousness to Unity, > the bondage and release of Brahman, amongst much else. Informal because it > was discussions done when time allowed, in a car, during meals etc. > > This is volume 1 and yes; highly recommended !
Dear Nablusoss1008, Sorry about that! (And apologies indirectly to Lawson)I think I did this once before. So it is you who have the Vernon Katz book. You speak of it as " a very informal and joyous book". That sounds about right to me. I have found that in *The Science of Being and The Art of Living*, and then Maharishi *Commentary on The Bhagavad Gita: Chapters 1-6* (plus his video and audio tapes) to be just about all that I could ask for*when, that is, I was as devout and surrendered as someone could by to this extraordinary personality*. I created my life around these two books; everything else seemed in some final sense irrelevant. I knew that's all I wanted: What Maharishi promised in these two books and in all those videos and audios. But these more casual and improvised conversations, they are of interest to me. After all: maybe Maharishi will refute my de-enlightenment. :-) I still hunger for a personal and intimate report about what it was like to know Maharishi from someone like Bevanand that one other person whose name I shall refrain from invoking here, even though I have the strongest intuition he was, as a Westerner, the closest to Maharishi of anyone. I believe Maharishi loved him. And he Maharishi. They just knew each other. When, Nablusoss, I would listen to Maharishi live, or watch him on video, my approach was not so much to focus strictly on the words he was saying, but to link up in my own consciousness how his words were attached to and resonating with his own personal consciousness. Even when I read some quote of his on the page now, I can feel all the immense and shimmering energy and love and profound integrityI mean the complexity and sophistication of this human being. Whatever anyone may say about him, Maharishi had a personality so formidable, not one other human being has ever been able to take him on. My sense always was: it was not just that Maharishi was in Unity; it was how masterfully and ironically and majestically he looked down on every creature in the universe, how he seemed to be seeing everything under the aspect of eternity, how totally confident and fulfilled he was, how his own personal consciousness was inclusive of every person's consciousness in the room. He was as high as anyone I believe could ever get. And he was very very strong. Just coming into his personal presence, one sensed there no weakness, no tension, no self-contradiction whatsoever. And his handwriting bore this out. Maharishi definitelyat least in some brilliantly aesthetic sensewalked the talkno, embodied the talk. Even better. He would still be, if he came to life right now, the most interesting and compelling person in the world. And the silence he generated and carried with himThere has never been a silence like that. No, if you you are going to attack Maharishi, you must first take him on as he really was; instead of just pretending he really wasn't all that great, and you have just gotten over him. *No one who ever loved Maharishi can ever quite get over him*. He changed the lives of thousands of human beingshowever temporary that transformation was, however disappointing that change eventually proved to be. He came into Creation to do something, to be something, and he was all that he claimed to be. Meanwhile I will ponder getting the book, Nablusoss. Thank you. And yes, Maharishi's sense of humour, feeling for irony proved one thing: there was no contingency, no event, no experience, no person in the worldat least when I knew himwhich could take possession of him such as to overthrow his integrity; Maharishi could, from the centre of his being, absorb whatever came towards him. I sensed this; I respected this; I was moved by this. I knew Maharishi was something no one else could ever be.
