A very straightforward, truthful, non-ironical post by Robin. When one posts like this to Barry one is always opening oneself up to ridicule, dismissal, criticism and hurtfulness. That is why I don't do it. I am not as willing to become vulnerable to Barry in this way because it takes fortitude and guts and the payoff has not been, so far, worth it to me. I react to Barry, I never open myself up to him. But it fascinates me when others do that are not part of his "group/clique/allies/perceived friends.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > BARRY1: For some reason, I find myself still tripping on a phrase used on FFL > yesterday. *Not* on the person who wrote it, but on the content, the > idea expressed. The phrase was "Now my love for Maharishi was of course > the highest love I had ever known." > > ROBIN1:Well, it is true for me, Barry, and I think THIS IS HOW I GOT > ENLIGHTENED. Like that? I thought you might. Maharishi loved Guru Dev more > than he loved his mother--more than he loved anyone. He loved Guru Dev as > God. For some reason the mystical forces extant at the time--early > seventies--were such as to make this experience involuntary, non-projected, > spontaneous, and the most natural experience one could have in the presence > of Maharishi. > > NOT to find something resembling this was to be deprived of the source of > grace which was dominating the metaphysical context of everything to do with > TM and Maharishi and teaching TM. You missed out on the mechanical principle > that was set up by Maharishi himself, Barry--and his connection to the Holy > Tradition. Ah, just let me say that, Barry: because that love I had for > Maharishi: it should be judged according to what it drew out of me even to > post about it. I do not love Maharishi anymore; and in a paradoxical sense I > consider that love having the same truth status objectively as my > enlightenment: read: none. And I have come to know another love since then > that is truthful and objective--albeit not as intoxicating and excessively > self-surrendering. > > BARRY1:I admit to stopping in my reading tracks when I first encountered that > phrase. My first reaction was, "Excuse me?," followed by a hearty "Of > course?" > > ROBIN1: As I say, Barry, Maharishi held up this "hook" as Marek expressed it, > and inside the context of the relationship between the disciple and the Guru > this was the most primary dynamic of evolution available. Conceived of in > Eastern terms, that is. Such a connection is unknown in the Western > tradition. And I do not get the sense of Maharishi's relationship to Guru Dev > to be anything like Saint Peter's relationship to Christ. Or even Saint John > the Evangelist, the only apostle who gritted it out and watched Christ die on > that cross. [The other guys fled in fear.] His mother took it pretty hard too. > > You have such a perversely arbitrary way of getting your opinions across, > Barry. In this case you are reacting to something I have said--and something > I have proven was true at the level of my experience. It is not a love which > excludes the possibility of loving someone other than Maharishi. That is a > very different kind of love. The love I felt for Maharishi was the love for > his beauty, majesty, dignity, authority, elegance, and perceived integrity. > These are not the reasons one falls in love with someone or attaches oneself > to a member of one's family. > > BARRY1: I'm bringing this up because I suspect that some people here never > paused at that "of course," or even noticed it, because for them it > really *is* an "of course." They really might also believe that their > relationship with Maharishi represents for them the highest love they've > ever known. > > ROBIN1: This undoubtedly is true, and your dismissal of the experiential > validity of this love is just a special Barry Wright form of sour grapes. You > don't even know the first way to go about invalidateing this love, or making > it seem inappropriate--as I ultimately believe it to be. You never take > yourself seriously, Barry: always just flinging away your accusations, never > following the demands that truth would wish to make upon you in order for you > to represent her. Think of how many critics you have on FFL, Barry: Have you > ever listened to one of them? Are they all wrong? They have hit the bull's > eye so often it is comical. Stop disgracing yourself, Barry. Get real. You > are doing your usual sloppy and tendentious and prejudicial job of trying to > do away with something--But you lack the grace, the discipline, and the > sincerity to do the job. > > BARRY1: It wouldn't for me. Maharishi wouldn't even make it into my Top Ten. > > ROBIN1: And what are we supposed to make of *this*, Barry? Is this: appeal to > authority? I am sure Maharishi wouldn't make it into the Top Ten for Mitt > Romney either. So what? I repeat the statement: "It wouldn't for me. > Maharishi wouldn't even make it into my Top Ten". We would have a hard time > comprehending how he could make it into your Top Ten, Barry. That would pose > a paradox--It certainly would be for me. > > BARARY1: That's not a putdown, just reality as I see it. > > ROBIN1: I know I speak for most readers when I say we are relieved to know > this, Barry. > > BARRY1: What, I'm supposed to believe that my relationship with Maharishi -- > who I spent very little face time with -- is somehow better or "higher" or on > a more elevated plane than my relationship with other people I've known and > loved up close and personal for years or decades? That's just SO not going to > happen. > > ROBIN1: Inside the context of spiritual truth and the evolution of > consciousness and the quest for enlightenment--Did you ever aspire to > enlightenment, Barry?--one's relationship with Maharishi, if you were a TM > Teacher, it had precedence--in some sublime and religious sense even--over > any other relationship. Not in some personal or intimate or existential > sense; but in terms of what loving Maharishi could do for you. And for me, I > attribute my openness to this reality to have been instrumental in my > enlightenment--even if now I would only feel an extreme aversion to the > mystical lure and siren power of Maharishi (were he who he was in 1973--now). > You need to argue honestly here, Barry: you just obnoxiously assert an > opinion and your crankiness is all over what you say. > > BARRY1: Didn't happen when I was a TM TB, and didn't happen with Rama when I > was > a Rama TB. I might have respected both people, but I never considered > them either the most important people in my life, or believed that > loving them was more important or in any sense "higher" than > loving...uh...my loved ones. > > ROBIN1: Again, Barry, if you were paying attention to what was being said > explicitly by Maharishi, what was the natural tendency of being an Initiator, > what the whole context was all about, then you clearly and rationally > separated out these two spheres of your life: your relationship with > Maharishi; your relationship with someone else. But there were many > Initiators who went exclusively for the relationship with Maharishi, in > emulation of Maharishi's devotion to Guru Dev. > > Why be so obstinate and recalcitrant, here, Barry? Every sincere and alert > Initiator in the early seventies knew that the capacity to adore Maharishi as > he had once adored his Master Guru Dev was a powerful accelerator for one's > evolution--as I say, perhaps the most efficacious means of all of acquiring > permanent bliss-consciousness--Unity Consciousness. Not one TM Teacher who > really had the hang of what was going on would have denied this, Barry. Your > pronouncement here is very much after the fact. > > I happen to agree with you--but you have confused and muddled the issue and > made it seem as if a retrospective view of Maharishi now in October 2012 > applies perfectly to the circumstance of knowing Maharishi in 1973. And you > would not even have tried to get a hearing with regard to the point of view > you are expressing now--then. And every non-disillusioned TM Teacher reading > this post agrees with me. This does not gainsay the ultimate verdict: That > Maharishi was not worthy of the adoration and love we gave to him. But it did > give me Ten Years of Unity Consciousness. Or was very much causally > significant in my slipping into Unity on that mountain above Arosa, > Switzerland. > > Ironically enough, the truth of what you are saying here--but in a most > screwed-up way--is what allows me to even conceive of loving someone > personally. I do believe that giving all that love away to Maharishi could > negatively influence the extent to which one could give oneself to another > human being in some intimate and personal sense. And therefore such mystical > love could in fact be deleterious to one's ability to appreciate another > person other than one's Guru. So I go along with you here. But what is true > now for me in 2012 is not what was true for me--or for you--in the early > seventies. And you would never have attempted to get this point of view > across to a fellow Initiator at that time. > > BARRY1: I'm not sure I can understand how anyone who is married or in a > long-term relationship can say that. Or anyone who has children, or has > helped to raise them. Or, for that matter, anyone who has actual > friends. Does the love one is "supposed to have" for one's spiritual > teacher somehow *trump* the love you feel for these people? Is it on > some "higher" level? > > ROBIN1: Again you are mixing things up here, Barry. When Maharishi was Great, > when he was King of the universe for us--at least for some of us--It was > never thought that our love for Maharishi inhibited or delimited or even > influenced how we loved someone else--lovers, parents, children, friends. And > why was that? Well even conceptually this was not a problem; and empirically > it never proved to be a problem, since in the final analysis that love for > Maharishi (IMHO--Hi, Khazana) was unreal compared to how one loved someone in > the categories you mention. > > But the notion of loving one's Master for the sake of achieving Cosmic > Consciousness--or more pertinently, God Consciousness--this was very orthodox > and believable and a matter of almost common sense among all TM Teachers in > the know. It was as real as the law of gravity--potentially. And every one of > us envied those persons like Jerry Jarvis who seemed so rooted in his love > for Maharishi--and yet had his own happy married life. > > Posing the question to oneself now: the whole understanding has shifted > radically and irrevocably. So it turns out you are right. But I will not > allow you to make what finally emerged as the truth after our disillusionment > with Maharishi become the truth retroactively. How absurd is that? And what I > said in my letters to raunchy is so much truer than whatever one could take > away from this misleading post of yours, Barry. > > BARRY1:I don't think so. And tonight I'm wondering where the belief that it > *does* trump other kinds of love CAME FROM. > > ROBIN1: It came from Maharishi, it came from what Guru Dev communicated to > Maharishi. Maharishi made this kind of love seem the sine qua non of > spiritual progress. In fact he implicitly suggested that he did not have to > do TM; he just became enlightened through his love for Guru Dev. No? This is > the standard impression each TM Teacher received from listening to Maharishi > talk about first seeing Guru Dev, and all the stories after that. > > Maharishi was our Master, Barry: Would you have tried to refute him? Would > you have tried, in 1973 to dissuade all of us from believing in the truth of > what Maharishi was clearly telling us: If you love me the way I loved Guru > Dev, you too will surely become enlightened? This is as basic a truth as any > TM Teacher ever learned, Barry. So it is clearly ludicrous to formulate the > question about these comparative forms of love as you have done in this post. > > BARRY1: Think back. Your sense of devotion to Maharishi. Did it develop > *before* > or *after* you heard stories glorifying devotion and bhakti and holding > it up as the "highest ideal?" There were a LOT of those stories. > Remember Trotaka? And the stories Maharishi told about how devoted he > was to Guru Dev? > > ROBIN1: No, Barry, this was an innocent experience, very much influenced of > course by a mood-making form of devotion; but somewhere there was evidence > that to love Maharishi above anything--and there were Teachers who became > part of the M group who took this seriously and designed their entire life > around this purported truth--the fastest means for evolution--to love > Maharishi in this way was normal, admirable, and the purest form of spiritual > experience that existed. > > BARRY1; Devotion to and love for one's spiritual teacher is a very Eastern > thing. I doubt that very many of us brought up in the West would ever > have decided on our own that it trumped more real, more tangible love > relationships. I think that the stories of devotion came before the > devotion. I think we were subtly and pervasively *trained* to believe in > the "highest ideal" of our relationship with Maharishi being the most > important one in our lives. > > ROBIN1: Believe what you want, Barry, but this is ridiculous: that we were > influenced by stories and ideas when we came into the physical presence of > Maharishi. You would make a mockery of the lives of hundreds of Initiators > who, however betrayed and cynical they might feel today, were at one point in > their lives, utterly and thoroughly convinced that Maharishi was the > equivalent of Christ, and everything that I said in my two letters to > raunchy, and what she said, this was standard fare for those of us sensitive > enough to get what was going on. You there, Barry? Maharishi became the most > important person in our lives because nature, the universe, creation--what > was behind all of this--seemed to, in conjunction with our practice of TM, > made this seem the most natural thing in the world. To love Maharishi with an > exceptional and self-sacrificial love: What could be better or more desirable > than this? Nothing. > > BARRY1: Think about it, and chime in if you have any ideas on the subject and > can express them somewhat peaceably. I'm not going to argue with anyone, > but I am up for a discussion. I think it could be an interesting topic: > > Is bhakti inherent to human nature, or is it a taught -- and learned -- > behavior? > > I think it's the latter. > > ROBIN1: Well, simply--and peaceably--Barry, you are wrong. Not that finally > this love is, I believe, anything but an illusion--and in that sense, it must > in some way be "learned" because I believe it to be something not intrinsic > to being a individual human being in the universe. But that this love did not > get generated from a source more powerful than our own will, our own > conditioning, our own psychology--this was so undeniable to all of us who > took into ourselves what the universe was serving up to us back then, Barry. > > Transcendence through TM; love for Maharishi: these were both the most > innocent and natural, even influential things in the life of every devoted > Initiator. > > No, the entire Maharishi-TM thing was very real, Barry. EXPERIENTIALLY real, > that is. Objectively, I believe you are correct (in what one can finally > conclude from your analysis): that love was false. And will do no good for > one when there is a final reckoning of one's life. But I would repeat, Barry: > It helped make me enlightened, and my enlightenment was real and it was > unreal. Do you understand, Barry? >
