--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > Do you see any difference between Bernie Madoff and Marshy? > > > > Yes, Madoff was a criminal possessed by Greed and MMY > > was a Hindu fundamentalist with a Messiah complex. > > (At least MMY has done some good.) > > For the record, I agree with BillyG's distinction here. > > I think his short description of Maharishi is somewhat > accurate, and that -- unlike Bernie Madoff -- he was > driven in his early years by a genuine desire to "save > the world." As the years progressed, and he got more > and more attention from his followers and the press, > I believe that desire shifted to "save the world, as > long as *I* get the credit for saving it." Towards the > end of his days, I suspect that his desire shifted > again to "save India, get the rest of the world to pay > for it, and gather as much money as I can towards that > end so that after my death *I* will still get credit > for it in India, the only place that matters." > > Unlike some, I don't believe that he set out to be a > charlatan. I believe instead that -- like so many other > teachers who ignored the advice of *their* teachers and > began to teach before they were ready to handle the > pressures of doing so, that he was taken out along the > way by ego, by his own previously sublimated desires, > and finally by "believing his own PR," meaning that he > began to believe the projections of near-godhood beamed > at him by his naive Western followers and some of his > Indian ones. > > I have a good friend who went to India, studied there > for a long time, and began to teach as well, *but* > making it perfectly clear in *every* talk that he gave > that he was *not* enlightened, *not* a guru, and *not* > anything more than an enthusiastic guy wanting to spread > what he felt was uplifting knowledge. He loved India and > wanted to stay there, but he finally had to leave because > the Indians were having none of it. They would call him > guru despite his protestations, they would show up at his > door at all hours of the night seeking darshan, and they > finally made his life there untenable, so he left. I feel > that this is a *very* wise decision on the part of my > friend, and I commend him for it. He, like me, has seen > many teachers who *succumbed* to this level of attention, > projected onto them by their followers, and allowed it > to inflate their egos and turn them into something that > they themselves would have abhorred in the early days > of their teaching. My friend didn't want that to happen > to him, so he beat feet. Wise man. > > My honest assessment of Maharishi, in one word, is "naive." > He didn't believe it when Guru Dev suggested that he was > not ready to teach, and did it anyway. He thought he could > "handle" it. Same with the Rama guy I studied with for a > while...he very much thought that he could "handle" it. > Neither could. Both changed a great deal over the course > of their teaching careers, and not in positive ways. > > In other words, Michael, I'm again presenting a different > way of looking at the same scenario to avoid the temptation > of seeing it in completely black-and-white terms. I don't > see Maharishi as an evil guy, or even one motivated entirely > by money, like Bernie Madoff. I see him instead as a pretty > normal guy with narcissistic tendencies, tendencies which > were amplified over the years to become Class-A Narcissism. > > And yes, as BillyG suggests, along the way he did some good > *anyway*. Many people *did* benefit from TM, even if that > benefit was using it to set them on other spiritual paths, > or better, on their own path. > > Did Maharishi and the TMO do some questionable and even > illegal things along the way? You betcha. Did Maharishi's > willingness to use his students as literal guinea pigs > for his experiments in "techniques" that he invented > himself cause some damage and some distress along the > way? You betcha. But cut the guy a bit of a break. Could > *you* have handled the fawning and toadying and outright > worship projected onto you by naive Western (and Indian) > students without going a little funny in the head behind > it? I know that I couldn't.
He (MMY) should have been more upfront about his enlightenment status, since he wasn't we'll just have to asume he was not enlightened but was a sincere Monk. (I liked your thought out analysis, just sayin'.)
